Official 606v2 all time pound for pound top 15

First topic message reminder :

Quite simple post your top 15 lists, a placing of number one gets 15 points all the way to one point for 15th.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Ali
6. Fitzsimmons
7. Tunney
8. Duran
9. Mayweather
10. B. Leonard
11. Langford
12. Jofre
13. R. Leonard
14. Whitaker
15. Ross

Debate away but please no mention of either Louis or Mayweather, leave that to the countless other threads.

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:Fitzsimmons was not a part time boxer. He worked as a blacksmith as a young man, when his career started to take off he stopped. What is so difficult to grasp about that? If we didn't know better could almost think you were being obtuse on purpose.

Could he have beaten Ali?

Almost certainly not.

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:Fitzsimmons was not a part time boxer. He worked as a blacksmith as a young man, when his career started to take off he stopped. What is so difficult to grasp about that? If we didn't know better could almost think you were being obtuse on purpose.

Could he have beaten Ali?

Almost certainly not.

But the runt knew the answer to that question.

What he is of course over looking is his other achievements. The first man to win titles from MW to HW if I'm not mistaken? Something only RJJ has replicated which Az gets all wet over.

So how can he be rated higher? I'd back Ali to beat every hw in history. If all were shrunk (Sugar's methodology) I'd pick SRL to win gold, Ali silver and a pick em in a box off for bronze between RJJ and Floyd.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Rowley wrote:Fitzsimmons was not a part time boxer. He worked as a blacksmith as a young man, when his career started to take off he stopped. What is so difficult to grasp about that? If we didn't know better could almost think you were being obtuse on purpose.

Could he have beaten Ali?

Almost certainly not.

But the runt knew the answer to that question.

What he is of course over looking is his other achievements. The first man to win titles from MW to HW if I'm not mistaken? Something only RJJ has replicated which Az gets all wet over.

Shoo

Mods watch this guy's output.

Fitz fought in an era where the sport was in its infancy. Was in the transition from the gloved era and as such the length of fights, rules in place and way the sport was scored was very different. I have acknowledged countless times that the sport was ridiculously different pre 1920 as it was at this point the length of fights was reduced to what we see today and fights were scored according to todays rules pretty much.

Given this there are two choices, you either exclude guys from pre that date or you assess them based on how great/dominant they were in their own era. I choose to do the latter as I feel I have read enough about both eras and have the mental capacity to grapple with such a concept. If others choose to do otherwise fair enough.

Rowley wrote:Fitz fought in an era where the sport was in its infancy. Was in the transition from the gloved era and as such the length of fights, rules in place and way the sport was scored was very different. I have acknowledged countless times that the sport was ridiculously different pre 1920 as it was at this point the length of fights was reduced to what we see today and fights were scored according to todays rules pretty much.

Given this there are two choices, you either exclude guys from pre that date or you assess them based on how great/dominant they were in their own era. I choose to do the latter as I feel I have read enough about both eras and have the mental capacity to grapple with such a concept. If others choose to do otherwise fair enough.

Fitz was great for his time.......Like Jesse Owens was..........He was a trailblazer and he's ranked on his achievements and record like everyone else should be.......

Just because I pick Foreman, Page, Tyson, Ali, Klits to beat Louis It don't matter because Louis was in a pre-steroid era and was a small heavy in comparison..........Have no doubt steroids were rife in the Arnie-dominated 70s and 80s.........

I rate Louis lower because of the Schmelling defeat and his lack of opposition........But I still have him two...... though he'd be way down a list in a boxoff.........

I presume you rate Buster Douglas higher than Tyson then, beat him at Mike's prime. The basis of rating fighters on a head to head basis, is almost child like. Lesser fighters such as Barkley triumphed over Hearns twice, some fighters pose problems they wouldn't necessary pose for others and anyone can lose on any given night..

Anyway why bother, I'm obviously wasting my time with you.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:I presume you rate Buster Douglas higher than Tyson then, beat him at Mike's prime. The basis of rating fighters on a head to head basis, is almost child like.  Lesser fighters such as Barkley triumphed over Hearns twice, some fighters pose problems they wouldn't necessary pose for others and anyone can lose on any given night..

Anyway why bother, I'm obviously wasting my time with you.

Cheers Rodders

That's how Bert Sugar ranks them.

Take a hike then.

Rowley wrote:Fitz fought in an era where the sport was in its infancy. Was in the transition from the gloved era and as such the length of fights, rules in place and way the sport was scored was very different. I have acknowledged countless times that the sport was ridiculously different pre 1920 as it was at this point the length of fights was reduced to what we see today and fights were scored according to todays rules pretty much.

Given this there are two choices, you either exclude guys from pre that date or you assess them based on how great/dominant they were in their own era. I choose to do the latter as I feel I have read enough about both eras and have the mental capacity to grapple with such a concept. If others choose to do otherwise fair enough.

I've said before that there should be two lists.

Have two lists then, however some choose to rank them otherwise, I am in the former category. To be honest having seen the thread Rodders bumped I tend not to pay too much attention to your lists, for obvious reasons.

No problem. Having an assortment of chumps on top of a list just to show off supposed boxing knowledge is impressive in a childish way. I prefer to be realistic and rank fighters in terms of who is the best figter pound for pound. To that end SRL is the best ever followed by Ali, Floyd RJJ and SRR.

Must say though........The people who right off Sugar ray L against Sugar Rar R .......Do forget that Turpin gave Robbo a nightmare........

Robbo is most peoples number 1.......and I don't have a real problem with it......But like most old fighters his positives get heightened and his negatives overlooked........

Wouldn't be a big stretch to say someone who struggled with the style of Turpin would find Leonard's clever skill equally as diffcult to overcome.

That is heresy truss/az.

I rate them on performances, achievements, longevity, era dominance and talent. I think Forrest has a better chance of beating Mayweather than Trinidad but it doesn't make him rank higher. I think Lewis beats Louis but in no shape or form should he be higher.

You are right to do that too.......

Don't buy into rating someone on who he doesn't fight.......Robbo avoided Turpin 3.......according to an article in The Ring magazine.......Jack Soloman saying he reneged on a deal...

But who cares..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I rate them on performances, achievements, longevity, era dominance and talent. I think Forrest has a better chance of beating Mayweather than Trinidad but it doesn't make him rank higher. I think Lewis beats Louis but in no shape or form should he be higher.

In that case where would you place Wlad? He has achieved everything being the dominant HW of his era (his brother included), reigned for the better part of a decade and beaten all comers to the extent that he's lapped the field. His performances are boring, but then again I find Floyd very boring to watch.

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I rate them on performances, achievements, longevity, era dominance and talent. I think Forrest has a better chance of beating Mayweather than Trinidad but it doesn't make him rank higher. I think Lewis beats Louis but in no shape or form should he be higher.

In that case where would you place Wlad? He has achieved everything being the dominant HW of his era (his brother included), reigned for the better part of a decade and beaten all comers to the extent that he's lapped the field. His performances are boring, but then again I find Floyd very boring to watch.

I'd imagine not very highly on account of the fact that he's beaten no one of note during his entire reign. Not his fault, but a fighter's opportunity to get in to the ATG ranks is at least partially dependent the opposition around in his era.

Bit unfair though Box.

Its not his fault he is ten times better than everyone around.

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I rate them on performances, achievements, longevity, era dominance and talent. I think Forrest has a better chance of beating Mayweather than Trinidad but it doesn't make him rank higher. I think Lewis beats Louis but in no shape or form should he be higher.

In that case where would you place Wlad? He has achieved everything being the dominant HW of his era (his brother included), reigned for the better part of a decade and beaten all comers to the extent that he's lapped the field. His performances are boring, but then again I find Floyd very boring to watch.

I'd imagine not very highly on account of the fact that he's beaten no one of note during his entire reign. Not his fault, but a fighter's opportunity to get in to the ATG ranks is at least partially dependent the opposition around in his era.

The fact that he's won 99% of rounds boxed should be seen in a positive light. OK he doesn't blast out over matched fighters. But he has a surgeon's precision in disecting them like lab rats. Also many supposed great HWs in years gobne by fought dog mess and are ranked higher than Wlad.

azania wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I rate them on performances, achievements, longevity, era dominance and talent. I think Forrest has a better chance of beating Mayweather than Trinidad but it doesn't make him rank higher. I think Lewis beats Louis but in no shape or form should he be higher.

In that case where would you place Wlad? He has achieved everything being the dominant HW of his era (his brother included), reigned for the better part of a decade and beaten all comers to the extent that he's lapped the field. His performances are boring, but then again I find Floyd very boring to watch.

I'd imagine not very highly on account of the fact that he's beaten no one of note during his entire reign. Not his fault, but a fighter's opportunity to get in to the ATG ranks is at least partially dependent the opposition around in his era.

The fact that he's won 99% of rounds boxed should be seen in a positive light. OK he doesn't blast out over matched fighters. But he has a surgeon's precision in disecting them like lab rats. Also many supposed great HWs in years gobne by fought dog mess and are ranked higher than Wlad.

Don't get me wrong. I think the guy is good. But, he hasn't really had the chance to prove it. Points for dominance and longevity, but relatively low scoring for opposition quality (plus a few very dodgy losses earlier in his career). As I say, not entirely his fault, but you've got to be able to prove you can do it against the best and Wlad hasn't had that chance.

Fair enough. But that can be applied to most HW champions with the exception of Ali.

Mediocrity will look much better if the level of competition is terrible. You can tell from watching the Klitschkos fight they arent massively talented fighters. Very limited and predicatable. They really arent much better than Frank Bruno. They just happen to fight in an awful, talentless division.

catchweight wrote:Mediocrity will look much better if the level of competition is terrible. You can tell from watching the Klitschkos fight they arent massively talented fighters. Very limited and predicatable. They really arent much better than Frank Bruno. They just happen to fight in an awful, talentless division.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Well if you disagree with me I now know I must be right. Thanks.

No problem.  

I'll let this run until next friday and i'll post the results then, the more opinions the better.

Az, under the criteria I set out he only scores highly for longevity and fairly highly for dominance, were there no Vitali he'd tick both boxes. Achievement can be a multitude of things but largely that is for great wins and records as for performance and talent I don't appreciate how he boxes so he scores low.