A top 20 to argue about nicely

First topic message reminder :

I suspect that Truss and az are just about the biggest Mayweather fans on the board and they have long maintained that Floyd doesn't receive anything like his due.

I thought that I might try to see where FMJ would fit in to my list of the top 20 boxers ever, bearing in mind that the bulk of his career is now done and not much, barring a Roy Jones-style meltdown, is likely to change his legacy significantly. It's in no way set in stone, this list, but I wanted to attempt some sort of collection of my thoughts right now and would welcome any sane comments that might help the process.

1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) Greb 4) Ali 5) Charles 6) Jofre 7) Fitzsimmons 8) Langford 9) Mayweather 10) Benny Leonard 11) Tunney 12) Ray Leonard 13) Whitaker 14) Arguello 15) Roy Jones 16) Duran 17) Monzon 18=) Saddler & Pep 20) Moore

Obviously, there are plenty of good candidates out there who don't appear here, but as I say, this is just an attempt to set Floyd in some sort of global and historic context.

azania wrote:7 years on top and beating some very good fighters. Fighters who in most eras would be champions themselves.

Fair enough yet you dismiss Greb which is written in history a guy who amassed In a period between 1919-22 , a better win resume than 95% of ATG fighters manage in a career. He beat most of these men multiple times, and in some cases utterly dominated fellow ATG fighters like Gene Tunney and Jack Dillon. In a fight schedule that saw him fight sometimes more than once a week. Slipping up just once.

Cheers Rodders

azania wrote:A top 10 list without SRL is ridiculous especially if Duran is included.

As much as it pains me, I agree with Az on this point.

Jofre was a miracle to me, Shah. I suppose it's his ability that really sets him apart, since, a bit like Floyd perhaps, he doesn't have the signature win that really helps.

Nonetheless, Jofre's reign at 118 has led most of the knowledgeable, wise old owls to place him at the top of their all-time list in that division. His losses to Harada came by razor-thin margin, especially the first, when he was around 30, on the road, having a desperate time making weight and beset with management troubles. This against a young, consensus top-tenner at the weight himself.

So far so very good, but Jofre's astonishing unbeaten comeback, leading to a world belt at feather at the prehistoric age of 37, is one of the greatest stories in boxing history and undoubtedly the sport's greatest comeback in my book. We are often asked to dismiss the late results of men like Ezzard Charles and Roy Jones as irrelevant to the meat of their career, and within reason, quite rightly so. All the more reason that Jofre's mind-boggling feat of winning 24 straight contests between the ages of 33 and 40, including two world title fights, should be celebrated with a very high placing in an all-time, pound for pound sense.

Other than Ali, who always was sui generi, I find it difficult to include career heavyweights quite as high as this. Louis and Holmes, who would almost certainly be 2 and 3 or 2 and 4 in most people's heavyweight lists seem to have had very similar careers to me in a number of ways. Long-reigning champions with a few top-class wins, but an awful lot of fillers included among their victims. I struggle to see how Zanon, Leon Spinks, Rodriguez, Bey and Marvis Frazier, for example, are much better than Paychek, Galento and the like.

Louis is sometimes castigated on these boards for getting put on his backside by Galento or other comparatively unskilled performers. What can we then say about Holmes getting badly wobbled by Mike Weaver or decked by Snipes? As for Foreman, his comeback campaign, culminating in title victory at 46, ranks second only to Jofre's in the whole annals of boxing for me. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he only won a grand total of five heavyweight title contests in his entire career. Without the comeback, he would likely be placed towards the outer edges of the top ten heavyweights. As it is, he is rightly somewhere around the top 5 or 6, but surely not of the same merit as some of the lighter guys in an overall sense, regardless of the fact that he would have hit too hard for them if they had been in the same ring.

This is my problem with the heavyweights - not many of them have actually been as good at their trade as their lighter counterparts over the years.

Top 10 in order:

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Charles
Ali
Duran
Ray Leonard
Tunney
Floyd
Jofre

Gans is the closest of the Pre WW1 fighters (tend to exclude them because their sport was quite different) to make my list. That's not to say that Langford, Fitzsimmons and Gans are not great fighters, I just find it very difficult to rank them against their more recent counterparts.

Near misses to Benny Leonard, Arguello and Willie Pep.

Since others have stuck their heads above the parapet my ten at the minute would read something like this

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Ali
Langford
Fitzsimmons
Charles
Leonard (ray)
Leonard (Benny)
Gans

On longevity and fighting into old age Captain I would have Archie Moore ahead of Foreman. Foreman was pretty awful to watch in his comeback and his regaining of the title seemed more about triumph of the will and poor opponents than great boxing. He took a couple of bad beatings 2nd time around.


Moore winning the LHW title when finally getting a shot at it at 39 years old and holding it until he was 49 was unique. To think he fought Buley, Charles, Marciano and Ali over a 40 year career is incredible.

As regards Louis my thoughts are every sport throws up a number of individuals who just transcend their sport and rise head and shoulders above the rest. I am thinking of Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods etc. These individuals completely overshadow their sport they are that good. It's easy to forget that Joe Louis in his time was considered the best sports man on the planet. He demonstrated punching skill levels in the 1930's which have rarely been matched to this day and still sits atop the greatest of all time puncher lists I have seen. The fact that he didn't have Top 10 HW opponents does not mean he would not have beaten them. Sometimes ratings are based too much on paper and the phenomenon gets lost in the waste paper basket.

Some fighters are almost bigger than boxing like Ali or the Rays and Louis fits that bill for me.

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:7 years on top and beating some very good fighters. Fighters who in most eras would be champions themselves.

Fair enough yet you dismiss Greb which is written in history a guy who amassed In a period between 1919-22 , a better win resume than 95% of ATG fighters manage in a career. He beat most of these men multiple times, and in some cases utterly dominated fellow ATG fighters like Gene Tunney and Jack Dillon. In a fight schedule that saw him fight sometimes more than once a week. Slipping up just once.

Cheers Rodders

I can't rate Greb as there's no footage of him fighting. The only footage is of him skipping which was laughable.

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:7 years on top and beating some very good fighters. Fighters who in most eras would be champions themselves.

Fair enough yet you dismiss Greb which is written in history a guy who amassed In a period between 1919-22 , a better win resume than 95% of ATG fighters manage in a career. He beat most of these men multiple times, and in some cases utterly dominated fellow ATG fighters like Gene Tunney and Jack Dillon. In a fight schedule that saw him fight sometimes more than once a week. Slipping up just once.

Cheers Rodders

I can't rate Greb as there's no footage of him fighting. The only footage is of him skipping which was laughable.

I think there is some justification to that argument, Az. Without doing the necessary research, it's best to leave Greb alone. Greb is difficult to rank and its the lack of footage that keeps him off top spot for me. I don't think there's a better record in boxing and the class of those he fought and beat is extraordinary and undeniable. A couple of his fights on film (let's say Greb v Tunney I and Greb v Walker) might tip the balance in Harry's favour over SRR.

I've said before, my categories are pre war and post war. I can't include guys like Fitz, Langford, Gans, Johnson etc in my ATG list because boxing has changed too much. But guys like Armstrong were exceptional and would hold their own in any era. I can't say the same for Fitz et al. Their skills are primitive compared to today.

Guys this morons top ten consists of fighters who got beat by a journey man and when questioned answered back with "I dont watch lower weight fights" yet he had about 3 of them in his p4p list.

You would be better off debating with a brick

I'm going to venture a top 10 also, since this would seem to be the most effective method of establishing a position within the context of the debate.

1) Muhammad Ali
2) Sugar Ray Robinson
3) Henry Armstrong
4) Harry Greb
5) Sugar Ray Leonard
6) Ezzard Charles
7) Bob Fitzsimmons
8) Eder Jofre
9) Roberto Duran
10) Roy Jones Jr

Suppose after my long-winded post on the previous page I'd better offer up some kind of twenty, too.

1a) Armstrong 1b) Robinson 3) Greb 4) Charles 5) Ali 6) Fitzsimmons 7) Langford 8) Ray Leonard 9) Benny Leonard 10) Whitaker 11) Duran 12) Mayweather 13) Tunney 14) Ross 15) Jofre 16) Monzon 17) Pep 18) Saddler 19) Jones Jr 20) Chavez

Would have loved to put Arguello in there but, like Walker, Manny, Moore, Mike Spinks and Louis, he doesn't quite make it for me.

You ask for 'sane' and put Roy Jones in your top twenty?

Interested why you would rate Mayweather over Leonard and have no place for Louis?

sittingringside wrote:I'm going to venture a top 10 also, since this would seem to be the most effective method of establishing a position within the context of the debate.

1) Muhammad Ali
2) Sugar Ray Robinson
3) Henry Armstrong
4) Harry Greb
5) Sugar Ray Leonard
6) Ezzard Charles
7) Bob Fitzsimmons
8) Eder Jofre
9) Roberto Duran
10) Roy Jones Jr

This is a cracking effort and very similar to mine...Top 5 anyway....with Jofre and Duran the notable casualties....and Mayweather in at 9....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

sittingringside wrote:I'm going to venture a top 10 also, since this would seem to be the most effective method of establishing a position within the context of the debate.

1) Muhammad Ali
2) Sugar Ray Robinson
3) Henry Armstrong
4) Harry Greb
5) Sugar Ray Leonard
6) Ezzard Charles
7) Bob Fitzsimmons
8) Eder Jofre
9) Roberto Duran
10) Roy Jones Jr

This is a cracking effort and very similar to mine...Top 5 anyway....with Jofre and Duran the notable casualties....and Mayweather in at 9....

Mayweather is only a Martinez or Pacquiao and Alvarez away from the list to be honest. If he finishes his career undefeated having fought two out of those 3 (or similar opponents, circumstances dependant) then he's in.

Sorry for the late reply, Haz. Mayweather narrowly eclipses Leonard for me for a couple of reasons. I should emphasise that it is a slight case of splitting hairs, but that's the nature of the beast when you're trying to compare truly great fighters.

Essentially, Leonard was a wonder at one weight and, barring the Hagler performance, actually no better than pretty good overall above that weight. To my eye, Mayweather was almost as much of a wonder at super-feather, albeit lacking foes of the quality of Benitez, Duran and Hearns against whom to prove it. Above super-feather, though, hardly anyone has got within hailing distance of Floyd at a further three weights (I'm discounting light-middle at the moment), with the exception of Castillo in their first fight. In his prime, at his best weight, Leonard lost to Duran in a way that, although memorable, was also not particularly smart. Duran was a great lightweight and pretty good at 147, but Leonard still ought to have beaten him in Montreal, rather than get dragged into a machismo contest. I just can't imagine Floyd making that kind of mental error, however good the opposition.

The second point I would make is one of longevity. We are basically judging Ray on a remarkable 5-6 year stint at 147, plus one fight at middle. Floyd's been doing this at the highest level, and various weights, against opponents who haven't exactly been awful, for about twice as long, and he still looks as good as ever. Ray Leonard in his 30s was largely a pitiful sight, one which I prefer to forget, but if we're comparing him with Mayweather, it isn't fair to do so utterly.

Briefly on Joe Louis, in heavyweight terms, he's a colossus, but I'm afraid I don't generally think that much of that division over the years. Phenomenal record, but I can't bring myself to say that his achievements were superior to any of those I listed in the top 20. I regard Joe as a day's march behind Ali, albeit just as far ahead of the rest of the division, and that doesn't lead me to place him any higher than about 25 in a comparison with equally great fighters from other divisions.

Good post on the direct comparison between Floyd and Leonard, captain, and I hope you don't mind me wading in on yours and Haz's debate.

Floyd's at twelve in my list above, with a possible scope to go a shade higher, so I'd like to think I'm not doing him a disservice. But I personally wouldn't feel comfortable having him ahead of the second Sugar Ray, even though you've constructed a good argument for him.

I suppose I'm not comfortable with the idea that Leonard was closer to servicable at weights other than 147 than he was brilliant, really (I know that's not the words you've used, but you get my drift!). Very often, the weights at which fighters from the lower / middle divisions fight at is dependant on where exactly the big fights are, I reckon. I feel sure that, had the big fights in his own era been spread across more divisions, Leonard would have proved himself a great force at other weights away from Welter. But when that division houses Benitez, Duran and Hearns, there really isn't too much else to go looking for!

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Leonard's 'on paper' record above 147 of 5-2-1 (the draw being pretty fortunate) is a bit of a false statistic, for me. Mayweather might have many more impressive wins and performances above his starting weight than Leonard has, but how many wins against the Judahs, Castillos and Hattons of this world would he need to accumulate as many brownie points as Leonard deserves to have for that remarkable comeback victory against Hagler?

I also believe it's a slight misconception that Leonard had a torrid struggle with Kalule at 154, too. As we know, Leonard had an ego so big it almost matched his talent, and I'd say the main reason he ate more leather in that fight then he usually did is basically because he was almost contemptuous to Kalule that night, and wanted to prove (again) that he could rough it up and soak up shots in order to get his own off - very important, given that his Welterweight unification showdown with Tommy was on the horizon.

Any problems (which I reckon he could have avoided without too much bother had he decided to box Kalule the way he boxed Benitez, for instance) Leonard had against Kalule were more down to Leonard's mood rather than an inability to carry an extra half a stone effectively or any brilliance on his opponent's part. Leonard basically outclassed Kalule for the first three or four rounds of that fight with his silky skills before getting a bit gung-ho and macho once he had his man in trouble, which is when Kalule had his moments of success. When he got back to his smooth boxing - rather than brawling - in the eighth, he was dominant again and closed the show in the next round.

Again, I just can't quite find it within myself to be as understanding as others when it comes to Floyd's inability to make those most telling fights happen. When was the last time he stepped through the ropes to fight someone who was the man most in demand by the boxing public, or the biggest and most legitimate threat to his '0'? Hatton in late 2007 was good, but Cotto would have been better. From 2009 to 2011, when all we could think of was Mayweather-Pacquiao, we had to make do with Mayweather against Mosley and Ortiz. Right now, the consensus is that Alvarez at 154 (or at least a catchweight or around 151) would be the acid test, but he doesn't seem all that bothered about it and it'd take a real optimist to see that one being next.

There's nothing 'wrong' with any of those above opponents, you understand, and they're all fine wins. But if you're asking me if Mayweather has really pushed himself to something like his limits and done all he can to make his legacy the best it can possibly be since hitting the pound for pound top spot, then I'd have to answer "no", very honesty. Say what you like about Leonard but, sly negotiator or not, he wasn't afraid to put everything on the line in the toughest possible assingments.

And as much talent and as many gifts as Floyd has to call upon, Leonard had even more in my eyes. Yes, Duran got the better of Ray in Montreal and I can see why people might say that Mayweather would never have fallen in to such a trap, but you also mention the Castillo fight; if Castillo can tax Mayweather at something close to his best weight, then I wouldn't be so sure about saying that Floyd wouldn't have fallen foul to Roberto's rough house fighting the way Leonard did. Ring smarts aside, which Leonard demonstrated more than once in any case, as we all know, then the second Sugar Ray had absolutely everything, again even that little bit more than Mayweather, I think. Not quite as good defensively, but still hard to hit when boxing in full flow, as quick as they come with blurred gloves, feet that moved just as quickly, fantastic balance, genuine and big time knockout power in both hands, superb stamina, sound chin and a massive heart.

I also come back to the word "special" when I'm talking about Ray Leonard. Mayweather is special as well, very special in fact. But Leonard is just that little bit more so in my eyes.

if Robbo can fall foul of Turpin and Lamotta...............

and If Duran can get completely humiliated off Hearns............or Whittaker can lose four times...

Well then we can hold Castillo against Floyd...why not..

Mayweather beat Castillo and styles make fights..............If Duran fought like Hatton which he did against Hearns...Mayweather knocks him flat in 6..

If Robbo fights like he did against Turpin........Jones jr plays with him...........

Mayweather top 10...

Truss, you're just being deliberately akward yet again. I mentioned Mayweather-Castillo in direct relation to captain's belief that Mayweather wouldn't have fallen in to Duran's trap the way Leonard did in Montreal, as it was Floyd and Leonard who were being compared. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I don't see why you're so intent on ruining every Mayweather-related debate with this constant cheerleading for him.

Floyd detractors go out of their way to find any way they can to bring him down...In Castillo's case a fight he won....

Means sack all................Ali struggled with Norton......Robbo with Turpin...

Does Robbo struggling with Turpin mean Jones Jr owns his backside??

Did Hagler strugling with Vito mean Hearns whupped his butt............

Duran got his butt handed to him by Benitez, Leonard, Laing etc....Most high class boxers..

But Mayweather struggles with him...Right!!

Mayweather wasn't in Benitez class.........

I reckon Rosario knocks Whittaker out because I saw him struggle with Roger Mayweather.....

Just as valid..

Cry me a river, Truss. Mayweather gets plenty of credit on here, as most of the top 10 / 20 lists posted on this thread show. Just because some of us have the temerity (or, as you call it, the stupidity) to think that he hasn't always tested himself as much as his sublime talent or his self-appointed 'face of boxing' position warrants, or that Duran could have had a shot of beating him at 135 it doesn't mean that we're going out of our way to bring him down. Most criticisms of Mayweather, all of which are only ever small ones in any case, have usually been backed up by whoever posted them, but you're just never interested in even listening to them or even trying to see where the other poster is coming from.

For all his brilliance I just can't justify a top 20 spot for Mayweather, a guy who has fought approximately about 6 times in 6 years and still somehow misses the key opposition, doesn't sit me with one bit. Out of the modern day fighters Jones Jnr ranks ahead for me.

Cheers Rodders

I've seen your list Rodney.....

Boxing finished in the 70s.............apparently!!

You get old-timers who have Tiger Woods fifth and lower on their lists......

You're in their category....not to be taken seriously!!

Know what I mean!!

Cheers Rodders??

Politeness feigned.

Stick ya cheers up your arrrse.

Your yet to submit yours Truss, it was interesting as you had Floyd no 2 behind Ali last time.

Go ahead I'm intrigued.

Cheers Rodders

TheMackemMawler wrote:Cheers Rodders??

Politeness feigned.

Stick ya cheers up your arrrse.

Who threw you a biscuit ? How do you know it's feigned me and Truss have been debating for best part of 5 years.

Thanks for the classless comment

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Cheers Rodders??

Politeness feigned.

Stick ya cheers up your arrrse.

Who threw you a biscuit ? How do you know it's feigned me and Truss have been debating for best part of 5 years.

Thanks for the classless comment

Cheers Rodders

Your insincerity is boundless.

Regards
TMM

People had class before the 70s.. Mackem.....

Youth today has no class..

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Rodney wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Cheers Rodders??

Politeness feigned.

Stick ya cheers up your arrrse.

Who threw you a biscuit ? How do you know it's feigned me and Truss have been debating for best part of 5 years.

Thanks for the classless comment

Cheers Rodders

Your insincerity is boundless.

Regards
TMM

Your contribution to the debate is totally pointless, thanks for logging on.

Cheers Rodders

Louis repayed Schmeling the favour and some.

This 170lb that wobbled him was dispatched and then again and some. It's a strange to beat him with, but that's ok as you're looking for something when you have to criticise fights he actually won.

Cheers Rodders

Mayweather never had to repay the favor and some.........

Mayweather reigned for 15 years never lost....

Mayweather beat top fighters........Louis didn't..

Apart from that Louis deserves to be higher!!

What a joke............

Leonard beat Hearns, Hagler, Duran twice, Benitez, Kalule...........and he's below Louis..

Think you're being perhaps a little kind to Ray re. Kalule, Chris. Kalule was just a bit awkward and I thought McCallum showed the way to deal with him not long afterwards.

I did think it odd at the time that Leonard didn't do a better number on the Ugandan/Dane. However, I'm not sure that contempt for his opposition works for me as an explanation. I recall Ray's total, dismissive contempt for Bruce Finch in his last welter defence and the way in which he duly steamrollered him, exactly as he had predicted. I honestly think that Ray got the fright of his life when Kalule didn't come quietly and was hugely relieved when he found the right punch to end matters.

When I fast forward to Ray's really poor showing against Kevin Howard (admittedly after a year+ out), I have to think that he didn't carry the extra weight as well as some. Obviously, he deserves all the credit in the world for Hagler, but the meisterwerks are almost all at 147.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather never had to repay the favor and some.........

Mayweather reigned for 15 years never lost....

Mayweather beat top fighters........Louis didn't..

Apart from that Louis deserves to be higher!!

What a joke............

Leonard beat Hearns, Hagler, Duran twice, Benitez, Kalule...........and he's below Louis..

Louis beat all the top contenders about 16 ring magazine no 1 challengers, what do you want him to do ? Mayweathers great but has fought approx 6 times in 6 years and failed to meet the necessary enemies, you want to rank him as high as 2 for that, then so be it.

But before slamming many lists as jokes you'd serve well to list yours don't you think ?

Cheers Rodders

Whoever has Ali at 8 needs a lobotomy.

How often did Fitz fight.........

I've offered my lists...........plenty of times and Az is right about Ali....Four p4p top 10ers not enough enemies for Floyd!!

Cheers TRUSSERS

Fitz is the only middleweight since the conception of the division, ever to establish himself as the no 1 heavyweight. That tells you how hard of a transition that is, first 3 time champ across the divisions where that hasn't been replicated.

Put him where you like , but he'd be thereabouts for me.

Cheers Rodders

azania wrote:Whoever has Ali at 8 needs a lobotomy.

Ha

Whoever had Holmes as 10th best fighter of all time needs to be sectioned.

Cheers Rodders

You have Louis and Ali joint number 1........

Glass houses and all that..

Fitz defended his heavy title once in three years......and he's where in your list??....

Ha ha..you amuse me..

I think Mayweathers lack of willingness to really test himself against the biggest challenges over the last 6 years means he doesnt make my top ten. He also lacks that really stand out elite win that Pacquiao could have provided.

I couldnt have him above Leonard. In small part because I think Leonard was better and beats him, but also because while it could be said that he lost the frst Duran fight narrowly fighting the his the wrong fight - it could well be that Mayweather doesnt beat Duran fighting the right fight. Plus Leonard ended up avenging it and also made a real fight of it even playing Duran at his own game.

Are you serious in your thinking Mayweather has a stronger CV than Fitz ? He won't go up 7lbs for gods sake never mind jump from middle to heavy, none of this junior and super divisions.

Glad to amuse you though Truss, I aim to please.

Completely different outlooks on the game which is all part of the debate , get your top 10 on and we'll lock horns in the morning.

Good night

Rodders

It could be that Man City win the champions league next year...

Benitez, Leonard both boxing is evidence enough for me.....

Just wish there were Johnny Paychek types around for Mayweather to beat..

Shut up Rodney...I was stating Fitz had bouts of inactivity but you don't hold it against him....

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:Whoever has Ali at 8 needs a lobotomy.

Ha

Whoever had Holmes as 10th best fighter of all time needs to be sectioned.

Cheers Rodders

Holmes has a record comparable to Louis. He beat better fighters that Louis did. But there is an element of subjectivity in all lists much of the time. The only certainty is that Ali is not the 8th greatest fighter in history. That is blind ignorance and the utterings of someone trying to boast about their apparent boxing knowledge. In fact its an insult to boxing to have some blacksmith ahead of the greatest HW in the history of the sport and the most famous sportsman whp ever lived.

As Truss says, how many times did Fits fight? Who did he beat who could be classed as being better boxer than Horace Notice?

Let's look at your arguments.....

Mayweather never beat anybody..But Louis is at 9...........

Mayweather had bouts of inactivity...Fitz at 6 made one defence in three years!!!

Your arguments like your list is a joke.

Rodney wrote:Are you serious in your thinking Mayweather has a stronger CV than Fitz ? He won't go up 7lbs for gods sake never mind jump from middle to heavy, none of this junior and super divisions.

Glad to amuse you though Truss, I aim to please.

Completely different outlooks on the game which is all part of the debate , get your top 10 on and we'll lock horns in the morning.

Good night

Rodders

He's been up 24 lbs already.

He isn't rational Az............

Apparently Bolt is 15th on his sprinters list and Woods is 22nd on his golfing one..one place below Dwight Eisenhower!!