Bert Sugar's Top 10 greatest fighters !!

First topic message reminder :

1. Robbo
2. Armstrong
3. Pep ??
4. Louis ???
5. Greb
6. B Leonard
7. Ali ???
8. Duran
9  Dempsey ??
10 Johnson ??

He's an expert by the way.................Guess beating Benitez, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Kalule pales into insignificance compared to Firpo, Carpentier types........

Consensus tends to have Duran close to top 10 or in it so I didn't question that....You know how I stand on that one..........

Louis three spaces above Ali............

Personally have Ali number 1 but am happy enough to have Robbo and Armstrong up there.......Pep is never a number 3........

Just clarifies for me all this Expert bullcrap..

Heavy wise he has..........Tunney at 5 and Holmes at 10..........interesting..No sign of Lennox..........or Holy or Tyson..

Louis couldn't have done any more. He can only fight what was infront of him. Ditto Wlad who I believe could have held his own in any era (not necessarily champion but a ranked contender). Louis had dross to fight. They may have been ranked number 1 but they were dross nevertheless. He did all that could have been asked of him. Just too good for his own era, like Floyd is now.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

Walcott, Conn, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Lewis, Braddock, Bivens. No real ability.

Dear me lad.

Can they be compared to Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Williams, Foley, Norton, Quarry and others?

azania wrote:Louis couldn't have done any more. He can only fight what was infront of him. Ditto Wlad who I believe could have held his own in any era (not necessarily champion but a ranked contender). Louis had dross to fight. They may have been ranked number 1 but they were dross nevertheless. He did all that could have been asked of him. Just too good for his own era, like Floyd is now.

Floyd did have a rival that many felt could have beaten him and he walked away from him (and the biggest payday in boxing history).

This is the crucial point that you and Trussman can't get into your heads. Louis dominated his era -- fought everyone that challenged him. Floyd hasn't.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

Walcott, Conn, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Lewis, Braddock, Bivens. No real ability.

Dear me lad.

Can they be compared to Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Williams, Foley, Norton, Quarry and others?

No. And no-one is trying to. Just because Ali fought better competition doesn't mean Louis fought dross. Aside from Ali, who fought better?

To compare Joe's opponents to Wladimir's is comical. This era is the biggest pile of crap in history. Even Tyson Fury and Dereck Chisora will back that up and they're part of it!

Floyd has only fought the accepted number 2 (with him being ranked number 1) WW once since 2007. It's not just avoiding Manny, he has avoided a lot of real challenges.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Louis couldn't have done any more. He can only fight what was infront of him. Ditto Wlad who I believe could have held his own in any era (not necessarily champion but a ranked contender). Louis had dross to fight. They may have been ranked number 1 but they were dross nevertheless. He did all that could have been asked of him. Just too good for his own era, like Floyd is now.

Floyd did have a rival that many felt could have beaten him and he walked away from him (and the biggest payday in boxing history).

This is the crucial point that you and Trussman can't get into your heads. Louis dominated his era -- fought everyone that challenged him. Floyd hasn't.

He didn't walk away. Did SRR walk away from Burley? That's another thread anyway. Floyd has a better resume than Louis imo. He has fought better guys (in p4p terms as Bertie uses). He's done that without losing more than a round or two per fight.

If everyone who challenged him are dross, does that make him better? It means he fought dross and beat dross.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

Walcott, Conn, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Lewis, Braddock, Bivens. No real ability.

Dear me lad.

Can they be compared to Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Williams, Foley, Norton, Quarry and others?

No. And no-one is trying to. Just because Ali fought better competition doesn't mean Louis fought dross. Aside from Ali, who fought better?

To compare Joe's opponents to Wladimir's is comical. This era is the biggest pile of crap in history. Even Tyson Fury and Dereck Chisora will back that up and they're part of it!

Who is a better fighter than Louis? I'd say Holmes, Tyson, Lewis would all beat him. Not going to mention Frazier and Foreman.

Here's Ring Magazine's list of the greatest heavyweights in history from 1998 (note Holyfield's high ranking due to them getting a bit overexcited in the aftermath of his Tyson triumphs and Lewis's low ranking as he hadn't yet reversed the hearse:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jim Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams
32. Lennox Lewis
33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

Louis beat the number 13, 19, 20, 26, 28, 45 and 46. And while that plainly doesn't compare to Ali (who -- quite extraordinarily -- beat the number 4, 7, 8, 21, 22, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 42) you won't find another with a better record.

Holmes, for example, who many rank third, has numbers 1 (a half dead version), 22, 33, 41 and 43.

I think Foreman has only 8, 23 and 40.

Tyson has 36 and 49.

Labelling Louis's opposition dross just isn't factual.

Haz of them only Walcott, Baer and Sharkey were natural heavyweights, personally I don't consider any of them great or even approaching great. They all had ability and his heavyweight resume stacks up well to anyone other than Ali so he is rightfully the divisions number two albeit by some distance.

The Sharkey win I simply don't rate, it had been four years since he'd had a win of any note even then it's one of the most hotly contested decisions in the sport.

Bivins was years removed from the great fighter who fought with such distinction at light heavyweight, it was no longer 1944.

Walcott had great talent, the best footwork of a heavyweight i've seen but was woefully inconsistent, fabulous on his day but darn right average on others. The second fight is by far his best win.

As for Conn, well lesser heavyweights have dealt with greater light heavyweights a lot easier than he did in the first fight, everyone is entitled to an off night but you can only use that excuse so many times.

Braddock was at the time quite possibly the worst heavyweight champion there had been, he's probably vying with Carnera for that particular title.

In short you can only beat who is in front of you but when the talent pool isn't that great the manner you deal with them in comparison to your contemporaries starts to play a big part.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Louis consistency may have been top notch, but so is Wlad's. The term "bum of the month" was not coined for no good reason. Undoubtedly Louis was a terrific fighter. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But he fought zero people of any real ability (like Wlad). He cannot be rated anywhere near Ali who beat people who would have eaten up Louis' opponents with ease. And Ali fought them regularly. I would pick Frazier, Liston and Foreman to beat Louis. That is not a slight on Louis either as those guys were the best of the best the HW division had produced.

Walcott, Conn, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Lewis, Braddock, Bivens. No real ability.

Dear me lad.

Can they be compared to Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Williams, Foley, Norton, Quarry and others?

No. And no-one is trying to. Just because Ali fought better competition doesn't mean Louis fought dross. Aside from Ali, who fought better?

To compare Joe's opponents to Wladimir's is comical. This era is the biggest pile of crap in history. Even Tyson Fury and Dereck Chisora will back that up and they're part of it!

Who is a better fighter than Louis? I'd say Holmes, Tyson, Lewis would all beat him. Not going to mention Frazier and Foreman.

If you want to think that, then fine. It can never be proven so it's all pie in the sky.

Louis has a better heavyweight legacy than Holmes, Tyson and Lewis.

* Frazier and Foreman (although Frazier is another who often gets criminally overlooked).

His win over Ali vies with Duran's over Leonard as perhaps the greatest single victory in boxing history.

Haz none of this can proven that's the point, I can't categorically and unequivocally say that George Foreman is better than Jersey Joe Walcott. It all takes a leap of faith.

There's alway's the possibility Holmes ,Tyson and Lewis could beat Louis,but on the other hand Louis is equally capable of beating anyone in heavyweight history, no doubt about that IMO.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz none of this can proven that's the point, I can't categorically and unequivocally say that George Foreman is better than Jersey Joe Walcott. It all takes a leap of faith.

You can only compare who did the best work in their era -- between those two that's Foreman.

hazharrison wrote:Here's Ring Magazine's list of the greatest heavyweights in history from 1998 (note Holyfield's high ranking due to them getting a bit overexcited in the aftermath of his Tyson triumphs and Lewis's low ranking as he hadn't yet reversed the hearse:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jim Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams
32. Lennox Lewis
33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

Louis beat the number 13, 19, 20, 26, 28, 45 and 46. And while that plainly doesn't compare to Ali (who -- quite extraordinarily -- beat the number 4, 7, 8, 21, 22, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 42) you won't find another with a better record.

Holmes, for example, who many rank third, has numbers 1 (a half dead version), 22, 33, 41 and 43.

I think Foreman has only 8, 23 and 40.

Tyson has 36 and 49.

Labelling Louis's opposition dross just isn't factual.

I think I'll keep a template of this for Truss.

You throw the Klitschkos in there and Tyson has only Spinks. Wladimir would have nothing.

It's still completely subjective, there are three reasons why a win over Foreman is more revered;
1) He has a better overall record
2) His talent, he was seen as a destroyer, an animal however you want to say it
3. Doing it against the odds, Louis was expected to beat Walcott, Ali was not expected to beat Foreman

You can't confine everything to a record otherwise we all may as well actually sit on Boxrec crunching numbers.

What people can do is be fair and reasonable and leave the wumming out.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's still completely subjective, there are three reasons why a win over Foreman is more revered;
1) He has a better overall record
2) His talent, he was seen as a destroyer, an animal however you want to say it
3. Doing it against the odds, Louis was expected to beat Walcott, Ali was not expected to beat Foreman

You can't confine everything to a record otherwise we all may as well actually sit on Boxrec crunching numbers.

What are you on about? Foreman is rated higher than Walcott as he did the better work. You'll never know who'd have won a fight between them both.

hazharrison wrote:I'm not sure what more Louis could have done. Superb in rematches, a technical master -- perhaps the greatest puncher of all time. Missed no-one. Slew a series of former champs - overcame adversity, got off the canvas to win.

For me, Louis is a top ten untouchable.

Do you rate Mayweather and Jones higher? If so, why?

I don't disagree that Louis did all he could possibly be expected to in his career, Haz. As I said before, he was effectively handicapped and disadvantaged in being able to seek out consistently top class opposition, as many other Heavyweight champions have been.

Louis existed in a time where the concept of 'pound for pound' was virtually alien, as it didn't really take off until Robinson reached his zenith, by which time Louis' best years were gone. Up to and including the Louis era, it was the norm for whoever the Heavyweight champion was to be referred to as the greatest fighter in the world. I can't help but feel that, if we took Louis and his whole era, the men he fought, his win-loss record etc and relocated it to a more recent time when the spotlight on the Heavyweight division hasn't been anywhere near as bright and the little guys have been given more of the appreciation due to them, consensus ratings for Louis in an all-time sense might be a bit more guarded.

Simply put, I just don't think Heavyweight has seen as big and deep a talent pool as some of the other weight classes have. And even if it had, Louis still didn't compete in the best Heavyweight era in any case. While he deserves to be second behind Ali for his longevity and all-round skills, I also maintain that, on a head-to-head basis, Louis would have had more men than just Ali ahead of them if all the great Heavies across history were pitched against each other with frequency. Those factors combined mean that I just can't see him as a top ten man across all weights when there are so many other divisions outside of Heavyweight to consider.

Appreciate you're going to give me a rollocking for this, but yes, I have both Roy and Floyd higher than Louis. Now naturally, neither of these two completely owned, cleaned out and ruled over a division for over a decade and 25 defences like Louis did - but they didn't need to. They've been able to flourish across a number of weights. Now being a multi-weight champion isn't the be all and end all, but for me both Mayweather and Jones have managed to accumulate career wins that are, at the very least, just as good as Louis', and to be honest that's being kind to Joe. The difference is that those wins weren't confined to one weight class.

As for technical ability, you'll have to forgive me for being blunt; I just think Mayweather is better than Louis. You say that Louis was a master technician, and I'm not disagreeing. But what does that make Mayweather? He doesn't rap anywhere near as hard as Louis, sure, but outside of that I'm left scratching my head trying to find an area where I'd be comfortable giving an edge to Louis. Mayweather's defence is infinitely better, he's an outstandingly accurate puncher (like Louis, in fairness) holds a shot better, can fight well on the inside, has better footwork, a comparable jab etc. There's no shame in Louis encountering those aforementioned difficulties against Schmeling, Godoy, Conn, Galento etc, but that should only serve to make it all the more remarkable that Mayweather has had even fewer woes throughout his career, despite facing very fine opposition.

More holes and gaps in Louis' arsenal than in Floyd's, methinks.

As for Jones, well he had his own unique gift and a real mixed bag style which most coaches would disapprove of, but boy it was effective. Describe him as a technician or not, but whatever the truth he absolutely trounced everyone in sight for a decade in a way which I've never seen replicated. By all means give Louis the edge over him in terms of boxing fundamentals, but for me Jones was more dominant in his prime against his leading rivals than Louis was against his. Much like Louis, some of Jones' critics claimed that his opposition wasn't all that much cop, but to put it in to context look at this breakdown I offered up to kingraf a few months back when discussing Jones......

Toney. Widely-considered pound for pound number two in 1994, and was undefeated on the record. In the form of his life and still good enough to pick up titles years after fighting Roy. Absolutely humiliated by Jones.

Hopkins. Number two contender, didn't lose for another twelve years afterwards and was a world champion within the next two. Beaten by Jones.

Reggie Johnson. Prior to fighting Roy, his only defeats had been in razor-tight contests against guys like Toney and Castro - he was never decisively beaten. Two-weight world champion and beat good fighters like Collins and Gonzalez and was never dominated again after fighting Jones; but Roy completely toyed with him.

Malinga: Dropped a controversial decision to Eubank, beat Benn, but completely outclassed and knocked out within six rounds by Jones.

Richard Hall: Good enough to give Michalczewski absolute hell twice over, but given an incredibly one-sided and contemptuous beating by Jones.

Griffin: Undefeated when he faced Jones, gave Michalczewski problems before being on the wrong end of a dodgy stoppage, beat Toney twice (albeit one was controversial). Thrashed in a single round by Jones in their rematch.

Gonzalez: Undefeated when Jones boxed him and subsequently went on to beat Michalczewski and Glencoffe Johnson. Again, toyed with by Jones over a twelve-round shutout.

Virgill Hill: Never stopped before facing Jones, having just gone the full twelve with the 'other' champion at 175 in Michalczewski. Still good enough to win another world title afterwards. Stopped in four rounds by Jones.

Both men got the job done when it mattered, but in general Jones did it with a bit more conviction and with fewer problems to navigate. Both Louis and Jones deserve something of a pass for whatever went on in their careers post WWII and post 2004 respectively, but when at their best I just see Jones as being that little bit more consistent against his best opposition, that little bit more talented and as having beaten the slightly better fighters, too.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's still completely subjective, there are three reasons why a win over Foreman is more revered;
1) He has a better overall record
2) His talent, he was seen as a destroyer, an animal however you want to say it
3. Doing it against the odds, Louis was expected to beat Walcott, Ali was not expected to beat Foreman

You can't confine everything to a record otherwise we all may as well actually sit on Boxrec crunching numbers.

What are you on about? Foreman is rated higher than Walcott as he did the better work. You'll never know who'd have won a fight between them both.

We'll never really know who has the better record either but I would expect Foreman to smash Walcott into submission with four rounds. Seeing Foreman bounce Frazier round the ring gives me a strong indication he'd have done that to Walcott too, his superior footwork would keep him out of harms way a bit longer but as shown by Louis and Marciano he was there for the taking eventually.

so if you dominate crud..........it's better than beating five top p4pers...

Okay Haz..........

Hagler should be higher than Sanchez then......After all he was only WBC champ.

Not that awful five p4pers argument again Truss, I doubt any of them are among Mayweathers best wins.

Fact is they were p4pers at the time............

Louis beat crud...........His argument sucks.........

Calzaghe reigned just as long and beat better fighters........Stick him in a top 10..

Great post Chris.

Louis dominated his era but wasn't the best p4p fighter in it.........

Mayweather is the number 1 p4per on the planet......So how does he not dominate his era..

It's not a fact, it's as much of a fact as Haz saying Archie Moore is the greatest light heavyweight because the IBRO say so.

Was Hatton among the ten best fighters in the world when he faced Mayweather not for me, nor were Mosley or Guerrero.

Hernandez wasn't in the p4p rankings but I consider a win over him more significant than beating any of Hatton, Guerrero, Mosley or Marquez. He was an exceptional boxer at the weight they fought.

If Louis was around today, the spotlight would very much be on the heavyweights. We're only living through this era of P4P bull and multi-weight nonsense because the heavyweights are garbage and no-one has a clue who the real champions are in the other divisions.

Jones was an exceptional talent yet he was a bit of an enigma -- he fought a lot of crud and appeared to lose interest in boxing during his pomp. Those two wins over Hopkins and Toney beat anything Mayweather has, yet the rest of his record is patchy -- who are his next best? Tarver and Johnson? Jones can also be accused of being a bit of a front runner -- when Tarver and Johnson turned the screw on him he couldn't respond -- when Griffin frustrated him he snapped (although he avenged that setback beautifully). Technically, he wasn't the best and he missed a lot of good fighters (despite the fact he'd have been heavily favoured over everyone in his time: McClellan, Benn, Eubank, Michalczewski, Collins, Nunn, Calzaghe).

Sick of talking about Floyd to be fair but he has nothing on his record that suggests he belongs with the all-time royalty (and I include Louis in that).

Ruling boxing's blue riband division (any division) for that long as the one and only champion, making that many consecutive defences over that many years when everyone is shooting for you is an incredible feat. Louis missed no-one.

If Jones and Mayweather didn't fancy a challenge (Jones wouldn't travel, Floyd only takes fights he knows he can win) they'd merely elect not to bother.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:so if you dominate crud..........it's better than beating five top p4pers...

Okay Haz..........

Hagler should be higher than Sanchez then......After all he was only WBC champ.

Bore off -- same old rubbish.

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'm not sure what more Louis could have done. Superb in rematches, a technical master -- perhaps the greatest puncher of all time. Missed no-one. Slew a series of former champs - overcame adversity, got off the canvas to win.

For me, Louis is a top ten untouchable.

Do you rate Mayweather and Jones higher? If so, why?

I don't disagree that Louis did all he could possibly be expected to in his career, Haz. As I said before, he was effectively handicapped and disadvantaged in being able to seek out consistently top class opposition, as many other Heavyweight champions have been.

Louis existed in a time where the concept of 'pound for pound' was virtually alien, as it didn't really take off until Robinson reached his zenith, by which time Louis' best years were gone. Up to and including the Louis era, it was the norm for whoever the Heavyweight champion was to be referred to as the greatest fighter in the world. I can't help but feel that, if we took Louis and his whole era, the men he fought, his win-loss record etc and relocated it to a more recent time when the spotlight on the Heavyweight division hasn't been anywhere near as bright and the little guys have been given more of the appreciation due to them, consensus ratings for Louis in an all-time sense might be a bit more guarded.

Simply put, I just don't think Heavyweight has seen as big and deep a talent pool as some of the other weight classes have. And even if it had, Louis still didn't compete in the best Heavyweight era in any case. While he deserves to be second behind Ali for his longevity and all-round skills, I also maintain that, on a head-to-head basis, Louis would have had more men than just Ali ahead of them if all the great Heavies across history were pitched against each other with frequency. Those factors combined mean that I just can't see him as a top ten man across all weights when there are so many other divisions outside of Heavyweight to consider.

Appreciate you're going to give me a rollocking for this, but yes, I have both Roy and Floyd higher than Louis. Now naturally, neither of these two completely owned, cleaned out and ruled over a division for over a decade and 25 defences like Louis did - but they didn't need to. They've been able to flourish across a number of weights. Now being a multi-weight champion isn't the be all and end all, but for me both Mayweather and Jones have managed to accumulate career wins that are, at the very least, just as good as Louis', and to be honest that's being kind to Joe. The difference is that those wins weren't confined to one weight class.

As for technical ability, you'll have to forgive me for being blunt; I just think Mayweather is better than Louis. You say that Louis was a master technician, and I'm not disagreeing. But what does that make Mayweather? He doesn't rap anywhere near as hard as Louis, sure, but outside of that I'm left scratching my head trying to find an area where I'd be comfortable giving an edge to Louis. Mayweather's defence is infinitely better, he's an outstandingly accurate puncher (like Louis, in fairness) holds a shot better, can fight well on the inside, has better footwork, a comparable jab etc. There's no shame in Louis encountering those aforementioned difficulties against Schmeling, Godoy, Conn, Galento etc, but that should only serve to make it all the more remarkable that Mayweather has had even fewer woes throughout his career, despite facing very fine opposition.

More holes and gaps in Louis' arsenal than in Floyd's, methinks.

As for Jones, well he had his own unique gift and a real mixed bag style which most coaches would disapprove of, but boy it was effective. Describe him as a technician or not, but whatever the truth he absolutely trounced everyone in sight for a decade in a way which I've never seen replicated. By all means give Louis the edge over him in terms of boxing fundamentals, but for me Jones was more dominant in his prime against his leading rivals than Louis was against his. Much like Louis, some of Jones' critics claimed that his opposition wasn't all that much cop, but to put it in to context look at this breakdown I offered up to kingraf a few months back when discussing Jones......

Toney. Widely-considered pound for pound number two in 1994, and was undefeated on the record. In the form of his life and still good enough to pick up titles years after fighting Roy. Absolutely humiliated by Jones.

Hopkins. Number two contender, didn't lose for another twelve years afterwards and was a world champion within the next two. Beaten by Jones.

Reggie Johnson. Prior to fighting Roy, his only defeats had been in razor-tight contests against guys like Toney and Castro - he was never decisively beaten. Two-weight world champion and beat good fighters like Collins and Gonzalez and was never dominated again after fighting Jones; but Roy completely toyed with him.

Malinga: Dropped a controversial decision to Eubank, beat Benn, but completely outclassed and knocked out within six rounds by Jones.

Richard Hall: Good enough to give Michalczewski absolute hell twice over, but given an incredibly one-sided and contemptuous beating by Jones.

Griffin: Undefeated when he faced Jones, gave Michalczewski problems before being on the wrong end of a dodgy stoppage, beat Toney twice (albeit one was controversial). Thrashed in a single round by Jones in their rematch.

Gonzalez: Undefeated when Jones boxed him and subsequently went on to beat Michalczewski and Glencoffe Johnson. Again, toyed with by Jones over a twelve-round shutout.

Virgill Hill: Never stopped before facing Jones, having just gone the full twelve with the 'other' champion at 175 in Michalczewski. Still good enough to win another world title afterwards. Stopped in four rounds by Jones.

Both men got the job done when it mattered, but in general Jones did it with a bit more conviction and with fewer problems to navigate. Both Louis and Jones deserve something of a pass for whatever went on in their careers post WWII and post 2004 respectively, but when at their best I just see Jones as being that little bit more consistent against his best opposition, that little bit more talented and as having beaten the slightly better fighters, too.

I think you are vastly underrating Louis' ability. He also started fighting 80 years ago, training and techniques have moved on. There were also no steroids, epo or HGH around when Louis fought. The rumours or evidence around fighters like Jones, Hopkins and Mayweather using performance enhancers are rife.

Louis is remembered as a knock out artist and there have been none better. In terms of punching ability he is miles ahead of Mayweather in technique as evidenced by his KO ratio. Mayweather is a defensive master while Louis is an offensive master. As fighters they are very hard to compare as their particular best strengths are so well developed they are off the scale and incomparable. Louis' combination punching and ability to land 3 left hooks in a row at speed is as good as anything Jones demonstrated. Remember Jones fought a lot of very average fighters, against his poorer opponents he ended up looking fantastic. These poorer opponents are weaker than Louis' worst. Nobody has fought more top contenders while defending a title than Louis.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis dominated his era but wasn't the best p4p fighter in it.........

Mayweather is the number 1 p4per on the planet......So how does he not dominate his era..

P4P lists. Written by "experts" (well, Chuck Giampa). Who know nothing. Great, great banter.

This isn't me deliberately argumentative Strongy but I don't think you can say Louis has better punching ability just because he's got a higher KO% because you then have Vitali Klitschko. Say what you want about his record but while he's a defensive master Mayweather is also a brilliant offensive fighter. As far as throwing a perfect punch goes it would be difficult to seperate the pair.

Ok. Floyd and RJJ fought crud. Louis fought the best aavailable who were not crud but the term "bum of the month" was simply a joke.

To me Louis is top top class. Around the high 30s or low 20s at a push.

Notice Haz has chucked a Ring magazine list in........

So that's it then.......

Schmelling counts for something as well......

just can't see Schmelling beating Ali.......

Strongback wrote:I think you are vastly underrating Louis' ability. He also started fighting 80 years ago, training and techniques have moved on.  There were also no steroids, epo or HGH around when Louis fought. The rumours or evidence around fighters like Jones, Hopkins and Mayweather using performance enhancers are rife.

Louis is remembered as a knock out artist and there have been none better.  In terms of punching ability he is miles ahead of Mayweather in technique as evidenced by his KO ratio.  Mayweather is a defensive master while Louis is an offensive master.  As fighters they are very hard to compare as their particular best strengths are so well developed they are off the scale and incomparable.  Louis' combination punching and ability to land 3 left hooks in a row at speed is as good as anything Jones demonstrated.  Remember Jones fought a lot of very average fighters, against his poorer opponents he ended up looking fantastic. These poorer opponents are weaker than Louis' worst.  Nobody has fought more top contenders while defending a title than Louis.

 
I think a lot of people would say I'm underrating Louis' ability Strongback! But that's just me. As I've said before, my stance on this is clear - Louis was a great technician with a shed load of ability. But when you're talking about putting a fighter in an all-time top ten pound for pound, you have to be pretty thorough and it's my contention, simply from watching Louis, that he had more flaws to his all-round game than Mayweather did. You've have to believe that the struggles Louis had against some decent, but hardly outstanding opposition in his peak years were down to more than just a coincidence.
 
Ultimately I don't see how anyone can say that the first fights against Schmeling, Godoy and Conn didn't at least highlight some flaws in Louis' style. Seems to be an idea growing that if you point out some deficiencies in Louis, you'[re saying he didn't have great ability. All I'm saying is that he had some weaker points, hence why those fighters were able to either beat him or give him such a torrid time.
 
If Mayweather had been knocked out as a young pup by Hernandez when he first came on the big scene, struggled to a split decision against someone like Corley, needed a desperate late rally after being outboxed for much of the fight and down on the cards against a smaller man moving up in weight in Marquez and had been rocked badly and later put down by Gatti before getting his win, I suspect many people would be proclaiming that this was all evidence that he wasn't a great fighter and never could be one. That wouldn't be true, and nor is it true in Louis' case (if we swap those Floyd opponents for Schmeling, Godoy, Conn and Galento respectively), but it does serve to show how few holes there are to Mayweather's game from a technical view point.

As for your point regarding Jones. He has his fair share of fighters on his record who were nothing to shout home about. More than Louis, however? Not really, and they fought a similar number of world title fights, too. You're right in saying that Jones shone against those men who were there to make up the numbers as well. But unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure he shone against the very good fighters he faced n'all! His performances against Toney, Griffin (II), Hill and Johnson were outstanding, so it's not like he was found wanting when he did step up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Notice Haz has chucked a Ring magazine list in........

So that's it then.......

Schmelling counts for something as well......

just can't see Schmelling beating Ali.......

Who writes these P4P lists you blather on about? Ah yes.........Ring Magazine......

Schmeling could well have turned the same trick on the Ali that was flattened by Cooper.

I write lists......But they aren't gospel........

Not from St Mee of Bethlehem............

We'll just forget about Schmelling..........

When has Mayweather been leathered like that ??

Dominated the heavy division that night didn't he........Just like he did when 170 pound Conn gave him a lesson...and got too Over-confident..

Technically brilliant that night wasn't he.....??

"You had the title for 12 rounds and couldn't keep it..How were you going to keep it for 6 months"

Who said that ???

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:I think you are vastly underrating Louis' ability. He also started fighting 80 years ago, training and techniques have moved on.  There were also no steroids, epo or HGH around when Louis fought. The rumours or evidence around fighters like Jones, Hopkins and Mayweather using performance enhancers are rife.

Louis is remembered as a knock out artist and there have been none better.  In terms of punching ability he is miles ahead of Mayweather in technique as evidenced by his KO ratio.  Mayweather is a defensive master while Louis is an offensive master.  As fighters they are very hard to compare as their particular best strengths are so well developed they are off the scale and incomparable.  Louis' combination punching and ability to land 3 left hooks in a row at speed is as good as anything Jones demonstrated.  Remember Jones fought a lot of very average fighters, against his poorer opponents he ended up looking fantastic. These poorer opponents are weaker than Louis' worst.  Nobody has fought more top contenders while defending a title than Louis.

 
I think a lot of people would say I'm underrating Louis' ability Strongback! But that's just me. As I've said before, my stance on this is clear - Louis was a great technician with a shed load of ability. But when you're talking about putting a fighter in an all-time top ten pound for pound, you have to be pretty thorough and it's my contention, simply from watching Louis, that he had more flaws to his all-round game than Mayweather did. You've have to believe that the struggles Louis had against some decent, but hardly outstanding opposition in his peak years were down to more than just a coincidence.
 
Ultimately I don't see how anyone can say that the first fights against Schmeling, Godoy and Conn didn't at least highlight some flaws in Louis' style. Seems to be an idea growing that if you point out some deficiencies in Louis, you'[re saying he didn't have great ability. All I'm saying is that he had some weaker points, hence why those fighters were able to either beat him or give him such a torrid time.
 
If Mayweather had been knocked out as a young pup by Hernandez when he first came on the big scene, struggled to a split decision against someone like Corley, needed a desperate late rally after being outboxed for much of the fight and down on the cards against a smaller man moving up in weight in Marquez and had been rocked badly and later put down by Gatti before getting his win, I suspect many people would be proclaiming that this was all evidence that he wasn't a great fighter and never could be one. That wouldn't be true, and nor is it true in Louis' case (if we swap those Floyd opponents for Schmeling, Godoy, Conn and Galento respectively), but it does serve to show how few holes there are to Mayweather's game from a technical view point.

As for your point regarding Jones. He has his fair share of fighters on his record who were nothing to shout home about. More than Louis, however? Not really, and they fought a similar number of world title fights, too. You're right in saying that Jones shone against those men who were there to make up the numbers as well. But unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure he shone against the very good fighters he faced n'all! His performances against Toney, Griffin (II), Hill and Johnson were outstanding, so it's not like he was found wanting when he did step up.

Louis fought championship fights -- different to alphabet title fights. Jones failed to stamp his superiority at light heavyweight against a 48-0 (or something ridiculous) Michalczewski.

Mayweather struggled with Castillo to a degree -- was wobbled by Corley and an ancient Mosley -- and he didn't look all that clever against Cotto (a faded version of Cotto above his best weight).

If you're ranking them based on who had the least flaws, then fair dos, that's up to you. I fail to see how, though, you can rank that duo above Louis based on what they achieved.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I write lists......But they aren't gospel........

Not from St Mee of Bethlehem............

We'll just forget about Schmelling..........

When has Mayweather been leathered like that ??

Dominated the heavy division that night didn't he........Just like he did when 170 pound Conn gave him a lesson...and got too Over-confident..

Technically brilliant that night wasn't he.....??

"You had the title for 12 rounds and couldn't keep it..How were you going to keep it for 6 months"

Who said that ???

You religiously trot out "Floyd beat 5 P4Pers", which is a list made up by experts. Who you then claim don't have a clue...and posters shouldn't quote lists made up by experts.

What a clampet.

And yes, Louis was technically brilliant.

And what did galento do to Louis? Was he any good?

Mayweather is the greatest fighter of his era.........Was Louis..??

Pep and then Robbo about.........My guess is no........

How many times did Schmelling deck him before the stoppage.......

Braddock and Galento decked him too.......Right..........

Got to be technically brilliant to be decked off Two ton tony........A fat slob who swung from the hip.....A poor man's butterbean..

Did Louis lose to the best fighters he fought ???

azania wrote:And what did galento do to Louis?  Was he any good?

Big deal. Louis dealt with him.

So better guys than galento wobbled Floyd and that's a stick to beat him with. A mummified Moseley is way better than galento.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:And what did galento do to Louis?  Was he any good?

Big deal. Louis dealt with him.

So did Mayweather in every single fight he's had a hiccup in of which their are fewer.

Can't really compare Mayweather having one close brush with defeat against a good fighter in Castillo, retreating to the ropes (but recovering very quickly) for a moment against Corley but dominating every other minute of the fight, losing one round big to a modern great (or something close to it) in Mosley but bossing the other eleven and clearly winning a competitive fight on points against an excellent operator in Cotto to the Schmeling disaster for Louis, or his much more severe troubles against Conn. I mean, Louis didn't just flirt with defeat in that one - he very nearly went to bed with it!

I'm not ranking them purely on who had least flaws, either. I've already outlined other reasons as to why I'd have Mayweather and Jones higher, pound for pound.

I accept your points about neither man clearing out a division and stamping their name all over it the way Louis did at Heavyweight. But I'm looking at their overall careers, rather than concentrating purely on that. It's my contention that both Floyd and Roy's titles across multiple (even if they weren't always 'proper' ones, so to speak) combined with the names they beat regardless of weight class, as well as their consistency and repeated dominance when faced with their best opponents all add up to make a fighter a bit better and greater overall than Louis, and outdo Joe's 25 defences in the one division that was open to him and lower level of dominance against his best peers.

I've written over 500 articles on here I reckon of varying high quality !! 

So in essence I'm a 606 historian of sorts.......Which means Haz should be kissing my butt and agreeing with me...

Haz I expect my top 10 thread to show 31/36 posters have Mayweather in the top 10 next time I look....  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather is the greatest fighter of his era.........Was Louis..??

Pep and then Robbo about.........My guess is no........

How many times did Schmelling deck him before the stoppage.......

Braddock and Galento decked him too.......Right..........

Got to be technically brilliant to be decked off Two ton tony........A fat slob who swung from the hip.....A poor man's butterbean..

Did Louis lose to the best fighters he fought ???

Mayweather wouldn't have been either with those two about.

How many times did Louis get up?

Louis lost one fight as a young pup and avenged it emphatically. He lost to Charles and Marciano when over the hill.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've written over 500 articles on here I reckon of varying high quality !! 

So in essence I'm a 606 historian of sorts.......Which means Haz should be kissing my butt and agreeing with me...

Haz I expect my top 10 thread to show 31/36 posters have Mayweather in the top 10 next time I look....  

You're a 606 joke.

Being serious chris has hit the nail on the head.......

For me anyway it's quality of opposition that counts........

Why I have Ali streets ahead but Louis second.......

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:And what did galento do to Louis?  Was he any good?

Big deal. Louis dealt with him.

So did Mayweather in every single fight he's had a hiccup in of which their are fewer.

No-one's disputing that -- he just hasn't fought enough quality and walked away from the chance to do so (retiring in '07 when welterweight was red hot and then walking away from a Pacquiao fight -- his greatest rival). You can't be all-time top ten if you didn't face your main rival -- absolutely ridiculous.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't really compare Mayweather having one close brush with defeat against a good fighter in Castillo, retreating to the ropes (but recovering very quickly) for a moment against Corley but dominating every other minute of the fight, losing one round big to a modern great (or something close to it) in Mosley but bossing the other eleven and clearly winning a competitive fight on points against an excellent operator in Cotto to the Schmeling disaster for Louis, or his much more severe troubles against Conn. I mean, Louis didn't just flirt with defeat in that one - he very nearly went to bed with it!

I'm not ranking them purely on who had least flaws, either. I've already outlined other reasons as to why I'd have Mayweather and Jones higher, pound for pound.

I accept your points about neither man clearing out a division and stamping their name all over it the way Louis did at Heavyweight. But I'm looking at their overall careers, rather than concentrating purely on that. It's my contention that both Floyd and Roy's titles across multiple (even if they weren't always 'proper' ones, so to speak) combined with the names they beat regardless of weight class, as well as their consistency and repeated dominance when faced with their best opponents all add up to make a fighter a bit better and greater overall than Louis, and outdo Joe's 25 defences in the one division that was open to him and lower level of dominance against his best peers.

Can't agree -- with the experts on this one. Jones and Mayweather can be accused of missing their best challenges (Mayweather more than Jones -- who seemed more bored than scared of blemishing his record). They could have been so much more, those two.