Floyd, JCC and Duran

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

manos de piedra wrote:I make up my own mind on these issues hazharrison. In many cases I don’t believe experts are necessarily more right than me in what amounts to extremely subjective and practically impossible to accurately compare subject material. Is your argument that Dempsey and Johnson deserve to rank higher because experts say so?

I think Mayweather beat better opposition and was a better fighter. Its that simple.

But Dempsey is a legend on the back of destroying an ancient semi retired oaf like Willard and a hopelessly outmatched Carpentier that lost most of biggest fights. So the experts must be right.

Good for you.

I make up my own mind also, but don't fancy that I know more than the experts that were actually there or great scribes such as Budd Schulberg. I do a bit of both.

You're obviously a huge fan -- I get it. At the end of the day, though, he won't be rated as an all-time great or in the top ten fighters of all time by the people that count. Doesn't mean you have to agree but that's the way it is.

You guys are REALLY going to get excited when Broner starts taking names. Nothing to stop him surpassing Floyd.

Think I'll start a Joe Louis thread next week. Get your tin hats on.....

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes?

Witherspoon was better than anything Louis beat...

I would be pretty confident that Mayweather will go down as all time great when the time comes to rank him in due course.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Witherspoon was better than anything Louis beat...

Yeah Witherspoon was better than Jersey Joe

He is.........in my opinion.....Page, Tubbs, Bruno, Smith all current and future world champions...As a novice lost a contentious decision to Larry also...

Won the title twice........

However Louis ripped off Walcott in their first fight and struggled until he landed a big one in the 2nd...

So he's not a great example as to Louis prowess...

Walcott 51-18-2...and he lost 11 times before Louis beat him!!

International Boxing Research Organisation's(IBRO)top 20 Heavy's of all time:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Larry Holmes
7. James J. Jeffries
8. George Foreman
9. Sonny Liston
10. Joe Frazier
11. Gene Tunney
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Sam Langford
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Harry Wills
19. James J. Corbett
20. Bob Fitzsimmons


Got linked to an old BBC 606 article when googling the IBRO Top 20.

Got a chuckle out of a few comments. Only read a few I'm sure there's more, Lar Big Pants couldn't have escaped.

comment by LondonRingRules (U2628221)
posted Mar 1, 2008
ali certainly would not have stood right in front of JL , ali probally would have danced around him , and jabbed his head off ,--
============================

** Ali would have turned to jelly just like he did against little toothless Leon.

Joe Louis only lost to HOF fighter at the beginning and end of his career. Ali lost throughout his career, but Spinks is the nail in his coffin.

Mike Tyson would knock the both out in the same night, but can't hold Louis's jockstrap and all Ali can do is wash it.

Time to study up young man. Whole world watching.

comment by LondonRingRules (U2628221)
posted Mar 2, 2008
then watch the old clips of JL at his peak , JL far to slow for a lighting quick ali ,
--------------------------------

** Nonsense from a guy with bad eyes.

Leads to delusions. Louis had a most excellent left hook that Ali was hit with, knocked down with, and hurt with. Ali was so quick he couldn't stay out of the way of Sir'enery. Brilliant!

Ali enough talent to be in any fight in his prime, but you damn him with poor eyesight and specious judgement. Every fighter has weaknesses, and Ali had some whoppers that a balanced counterpuncher and pressure fighter like Louis can exploit.

So what.............pointless.....

By your reckoning Louis must have been the luckiest man ever to step in the ring.

Luckier than Mike McCallum it would seem if that's possible.

Strongback wrote:By your reckoning Louis must have been the luckiest man ever to step in the ring.

Luckier than Mike McCallum it would seem if that's possible.

Louis is my number 2 heavy..............Just have him miles behind Ali for the fact he never beat anybody and lost to the two best guys he fought..

In all fairness to Walcott, many of his losses came early in his career when he was pretty much living in abject poverty. He frequently entered the ring not having eaten for days or balancing his career with manual labour when he could find work. There was an appreciable upturn in his form once he hooked up with his manager Felix Bocchicchio and he could actually eat regularly and devote himself to doing some training on a regular basis.

Am not particularly arguing he is better than Witherspoon or any of the others we have named but solely basing an opinion of him based on his numbers does not really tell the story.

Strongback wrote:What about Roy Jones Jr compared to Mayweather?

My take is they will be very close in the ATG rankings when the dust settles. RJJ's opposition not unlike Mayweather's could have been more testing.

In terms of natural talent how do they compare?

Well, I think Mayweather has generally had slightly better competition to fight than Jones had in his pomp, and he's just about surpassed Roy in terms of longevity at the top now, as well. I say "just about" because Mayweather's run at the highest level has been interrupted by long spells of inactivity here and there. On that basis, I'd rank Floyd a little bit higher than Jones.

However, in terms of level of dominance over their peers and sheer, outrageous talent, Jones leaves just about everyone behind, even Mayweather. I'm not sure that any other fighter has made as many good boxers look as totally clueless as Roy made them look in his pomp. In my time following the sport, I'm yet to see with my own two eyes any other fighter with as much natural talent and as many physical gifts. Just about as close to unstoppable as anyone has come in the sport when at his best.

You're right it doesn't............But records do count.......and one has to remember Louis did rip him off the first time and came from behind the second..

To so laughably dismiss Witherspoon like the wally did.....I am merely suggesting Witherspoon belongs at least in the same company!

Witherspoon lost 13 times.


Ali lost to the best heavyweight he fought and Frazier as well.


This is the style of tripe the real wally comes out with.


Louis was a one year novice when he lost to Smelling. He was shot when losing to Charles and Marciano two all time greats not the likes of Leon Spinks and Trevor Berbick.


It's easy to be a clown, why not engage your brain instead.

Are you telling me Witherspoon isn't near Walcott in the ATg list..

Forget it just sling your hook...You're a muppet..

Louis above Ali..

No Witherspoon is nowhere Walcott on the all-time list. Witherspoon had talent but blew it up his nose and at the fast food takeaway. He was never the man in his own time and only won a belt and a share of the HW title because Holmes walked away from the WBC. Not close........no cigar.

Resorting to personal insults twice in a couple of posts. You must be getting worked up.

What did Louis innovate??
Who did he beat as good as Marquez and DelaHoya...
Ali had greater longevity and beat more top 20 fighters why is Louis higher in your deluded opinion??

Second thoughts don't bother..

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:What about Roy Jones Jr compared to Mayweather?

My take is they will be very close in the ATG rankings when the dust settles. RJJ's opposition not unlike Mayweather's could have been more testing.

In terms of natural talent how do they compare?

Well, I think Mayweather has generally had slightly better competition to fight than Jones had in his pomp, and he's just about surpassed Roy in terms of longevity at the top now, as well. I say "just about" because Mayweather's run at the highest level has been interrupted by long spells of inactivity here and there. On that basis, I'd rank Floyd a little bit higher than Jones.

However, in terms of level of dominance over their peers and sheer, outrageous talent, Jones leaves just about everyone behind, even Mayweather. I'm not sure that any other fighter has made as many good boxers look as totally clueless as Roy made them look in his pomp. In my time following the sport, I'm yet to see with my own two eyes any other fighter with as much natural talent and as many physical gifts. Just about as close to unstoppable as anyone has come in the sport when at his best.

Talent wise the two are the best I've seen in a long time, possibly since the 80's and Leonard. I think both will fall short of their potential. In terms of the classic fundamentals I think Floyd could be one of the five or so best of all time, his defensive stats even at close quarters can't have been matched by more than a handful, the compubox scores are mind boggling.

Roy is harder to compare as he was such a unique special talent. I would have him alongside Mayweather with Manny just behind. These are the three fighters I see being the fighters of the last decade or so that will make the ATG list. Hopkins might sneek in on the divisional lists along with JMM but that's it I reckon.

Personally I see none breaking the Top 20 ATG's. What could have been.

Any chance the topic can be debated without the personal insults?

Would be appreciated if it could

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What did Louis innovate??
Who did he beat as good as Marquez and DelaHoya...
Ali had greater longevity and beat more top 20 fighters why is Louis higher in your deluded opinion??

Second thoughts don't bother..

Louis innovated as he brought a style of punching to not just heavyweight boxing but all of boxing that had never been seen before and let's add has never been seen to such a level since in the heavyweight rannks.

If you are taking about Mayweather then you are throwing up one fighter well out of his weight range and the other was an old man who was winning until he gassed.

When did Mayweather ever beat up a former world champion that was 50lbs and 5 inches taller than him. First year as a pro as well.


I have Ali and Louis level. If Louis had the opportunity he would have faired as well as Ali did against the same opponents. If they fought I have it as pick em.

Go over to the IBRO and check out the long list of historians and journalists who collectively voted Louis as the greatest.

Haye beat a guy nine inches taller and fifty plus pounds heavier etc..

and you don't rate him....

You're so funny..

Difference being one had been the man at the weight and could fight.


Haye beat the consensus worst hw to hold a trinket belt.

I think people are placing too much emphasis on experts lists with respect to individual points. Its entirely subjective and lets be honest, next to impossible to do accurately given you are comparing apples and oranges that are in different eras.

People pick and choose the criteria they judge fighters on and are influenced by a whole manner of subjective variables. It helps when you have a better understanding of why someone is ranking fighters in the manner they do rather than ending up arguing different points that are not really related.

A major reason I place Ali ahead of Louis or Mayweather ahead of Dempsey is that I believe they beat stronger opposition (which in turn I think is a better true estimate of ability) and is something I personally place a great deal of emphasis on when ranking fighters.

On that particular aspect would those who rate Louis or Dempsey above respectively agree or disagree? There may be little separating Ali and Louis in terms of ability – we cant ever really know despite what any expert says because they fought in different eras against different opposition. So looking at opposition beaten would people agree Ali has an edge or do people think Louis beat a higher calibre of opponents?

As a heavyweight Ali is way ahead of Louis but in a p4p sense it's a bit closer due to their respective sizes. I think that's partly the reason why Dempsey and Marciano seem to be rated far higher than I think they should.

What would happen if fighters hypothetically went head to head is also used to judge greatness.

This definitely benefits Louis as historians have studied styles and abilities and then decided. If you have enough knowledgeable people carrying out this analysis and this analysis is compiled then informed opinions can be made.

To only compare records is too limited IMO.

I agree the different organisations should clearly explain the criteria for how they arrive at their lists.

Historians like Arcel who had Dempsey above Ali...

I've seen over a thousand fights.I'm a historian as is Manos, Rowley and Ghosty.....

Just leave it out..

Ring magazine had Spinks beating Tyson on points after analysing their strengths and weaknesses....

I think the IBRO lists are more objective than you are giving them credit for.

Arced was a trainer when both Dempsey and Ali were fighting, he's more qualified than anyone here to give an opinion.



Fighters Arcel Trained

Paulino Uzcudun
James J. Braddock
Lee Oma
Lou Nova
Buddy Baer
Max Baer
Nick Barone
Nathan Mann
Al Ettore
Ezzard Charles
Larry Holmes (for the Gerry Cooney fight)
Georges Carpentier
Maxie Rosenbloom
Bob Olin
Tommy Yarosz
Teddy Yarosz
Freddie Steele
Billy Soose
Ceferino Garcia
Tony Zale
Harold Green
Jackie Fields
Lou Brouillard
Barney Ross
Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Roberto Duran (Until "No Mas" bout with Ray Leonard)
Jackie (Kid) Berg
Alfonso Frazer
Benny Leonard (During his Comeback)
Charley Phil Rosenberg
Abe Goldstein
Tony Marino
Sixto Escobar
Frankie Genaro
Sammy Farber
Maxie Berger
Johnny Paychek
Charley Massera
Danny Kapilow
John Henry Lewis
Joe Baksi
Leo Lomski
Jorge Brescia
Al McCoy
Benny Valger
Sonny Horne
Tony Pellone
Jimmy Bivins

So Dempsey is better than Ali because Arcel says so..

I've seen more fights than most on here...........and yet I didn't pick Douglas to beat Tyson....

Bet Arcel would have though..

Only saying Arcel had first hand knowledge and knew what he was doing.

If everyone agreed there'd be no debate.

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes?

Yep, they would all beat every opponent Louis faced. Tim would beat Louis also. i'd be surprised if Louis went past 7 rounds. Tim knew how to throw combos at age 12. Louis never faced a big guy who could throw comos.

The guys Louis beat thought avoiding a punch with a body part other than their chin was a sign of cowardice.

Strongback wrote:What would happen if fighters hypothetically went head to head is also used to judge greatness.

This definitely benefits Louis as historians have studied styles and abilities and then decided. If you have enough knowledgeable people carrying out this analysis and this analysis is compiled then informed opinions can be made.

To only compare records is too limited IMO.

I agree the different organisations should clearly explain the criteria for how they arrive at their lists.

Style and ability wise several HWs are light years ahead of Louis. Holmes is far more skilled and Ali is on another planet altogether.

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes?

Yep, they would all beat every opponent Louis faced. Tim would beat Louis also. i'd be surprised if Louis went past 7 rounds. Tim knew how to throw combos at age 12. Louis never faced a big guy who could throw comos.

The guys Louis beat thought avoiding a punch with a body part other than their chin was a sign of cowardice.

Do you have turrets, ADHD, autism, or aspergers?

He's greedy if he has all of them..

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes?

Yep, they would all beat every opponent Louis faced. Tim would beat Louis also. i'd be surprised if Louis went past 7 rounds. Tim knew how to throw combos at age 12. Louis never faced a big guy who could throw comos.

The guys Louis beat thought avoiding a punch with a body part other than their chin was a sign of cowardice.

Do you have turrets, ADHD, autism, or aspergers?

Yes I have all of them. But my points (between my bouts of turrets et al) is accurate. Louis (your claim) was the innovator of conbination punching. That is common with novice boxers. Even chisora throws combinations. Tim beats Louis within 7.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He's greedy if he has all of them..

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes?

Yep, they would all beat every opponent Louis faced. Tim would beat Louis also. i'd be surprised if Louis went past 7 rounds. Tim knew how to throw combos at age 12. Louis never faced a big guy who could throw comos.

The guys Louis beat thought avoiding a punch with a body part other than their chin was a sign of cowardice.

Do you have turrets, ADHD, autism, or aspergers?

Yes I have all of them. But my points (between my bouts of turrets et al) is accurate. Louis (your claim) was the innovator of conbination punching. That is common with novice boxers. Even chisora throws combinations. Tim beats Louis within 7.

Is it not possible to be critical without taking things too far and just being ridiculous.

Strong, I like to think we have some very knowledgable posters on here who know a thing or two about the sports history and as a collective we ended up with Louis at number 19, I would expect him to end up slightly lower when the dust setttles on the careers of Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather and Pacquiao. A position around the 20-25 mark seems reasonable to me.

https://www.606v2.com/t11116-the-official-606v2-all-time-pound-for-pound-rankings

Ha!!! Preposterous!! Louis is top five. I'll start a thread on it when I can be bothered.

Can't see any argument for him being ahead of any of the top 12, not a slight on Louis I just feel others are more deserving of such lofty status.

I'll make one.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Is it not possible to be critical without taking things too far and just being ridiculous.

Strong, I like to think we have some very knowledgable posters on here who know a thing or two about the sports history and as a collective we ended up with Louis at number 19, I would expect him to end up slightly lower when the dust setttles on the careers of Hopkins, Jones, Mayweather and Pacquiao. A position around the 20-25 mark seems reasonable to me.

https://www.606v2.com/t11116-the-official-606v2-all-time-pound-for-pound-rankings

There's a lot more than 16 people voting in the IBRO and I doubt there are any aliases.

Maybe like I suggested further up the the thread every site has it's anomalies when it comes to ratings. Louis gets a very hard time on this board. Not surprising really when there is a one man army propagating propaganda against him for close on a decade.

As good a boxing site as this is it's not the only fountain of knowledge out there.

I re-iterate Louis is number 2 on my list......

I'm not suggesting it is a fountain of knowledge but it shows how little worth any sites listings are, when people say that Mayweather doesn't belong in a top 30 they have to quantify it with the names of those they rate higher rather than hiding behind the opinions of others.

Those old timers wouldn't hang with today's fighters. It would be like a race between a F1 xaraagainst a trabanz. According to one poster prior to Louis they didn't know what a combination was.

azania wrote:Those old timers wouldn't hang with today's fighters. It would be like a race between a F1 xaraagainst a trabanz. According to one poster prior to Louis they didn't know what a combination was.

Cool story bro

Well did they?