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.

Guys i've no interest in hearing the same regurgitated crap about Mayweather, go and do it elsewhere.

Toppy

If there are any lists which I think are a blatant wind up then I will not be including them, last time 'I' did this, there were two lists I dismissed.

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Manny Pacquiao
4. 'Prime' Tyson
5. Jack Johnson
6. James Degale
7. Carl Froch
8. Joe Calzaghe
9. Sven Ottke (he's a great don't you know?)
10. Audley Harrison (Olympic champion)
  |
  |
  |
  |
 \/
163. Floyd

I'm serious and I demand that my opinion be counted.

Mayweather is the most talented boxer of the last decade but boxing has been declining in talent and his level of competition hasnt been as tough as those great fighters. The 80s would have been a massive step up for Mayweather in competition.

Simply put catchweight, post a list or bugger off and ruin another thread instead.

Ah stuff your lists. Im not posting one. Pointless crap that means nothing. Like yourself.

There is no need to be commenting then.

I seem to have missed a bit in the last few weeks. Can never resist this, however:

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

A couple of caveats - I keep swapping Ali and Charles around, so they might be reversed again tomorrow. I'm aware that my regard for Jofre is unusually high. However, if one adds the greatest sustained comeback in all of boxing history to my contention that he was the premier bantam of all time as well, I reckon he deserves it. Pep, Saddler, Pacquiao, Arguello, Duran, Roy Jones and Monzon (perhaps the finest single division fighter in history) would be the next cabs off my rank, in no particular order and, on another day, could easily swap places with Ross for me. Not at this precise moment, however. Some will see Duran's relatively low position as heretical - it's not intended to be so and I don't think that being somewhere between 15 and 20 is an insult. However, I can't totally ignore things like his struggles with DeJesus, No Mas and the Kirkland Laing/Jimmy Batten "performances", so, I'm afraid, his partisans will have to sue me!

As for Joe Louis, I'm with the school of thought that places him in the mid-20s and makes him the only other heavyweight, with Ali, who has much business in a top 50. The reasons have been amply discussed elsewhere and I'm not about to rehash them here.

Can't say that I see how there can be a "right or wrong" to this eternal conundrum, certainly not to the extent that would justify some of the stuff that some folk have been throwing at each other. It's supposed to be fun, this board, and the fact that recently, it hasn't seemed much like it is part of the reason that I've given it a wide berth lately. With a bit of luck, that will change as the season of goodwill approaches!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Guys i've no interest in hearing the same regurgitated crap about Mayweather, go and do it elsewhere.

Toppy

If there are any lists which I think are a blatant wind up then I will not be including them, last time 'I' did this, there were two lists I dismissed.

Any list with Floyd in should be classed as a wind up - no basis for him being there. This is all some fluffers club trying to tickle his balls and help reassure each other that your favourite fighter gets the place any rational judge would dismiss (depending on criteria).

Like a bad f art this thread.

For me RJJ is the most talented fighter of recent times and he would have been my number 16, with Floyd and Manny just behind him. At the end of the day these are just opinions and no ones is worth more than anyone elses, so it would be nice if this doesn't turn into another pointless row with people trying to belittle others that dont agree with them.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I seem to have missed a bit in the last few weeks. Can never resist this, however:

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

A couple of caveats - I keep swapping Ali and Charles around, so they might be reversed again tomorrow. I'm aware that my regard for Jofre is unusually high. However, if one adds the greatest sustained comeback in all of boxing history to my contention that he was the premier bantam of all time as well, I reckon he deserves it. Pep, Saddler, Pacquiao, Arguello, Duran, Roy Jones and Monzon (perhaps the finest single division fighter in history) would be the next cabs off my rank, in no particular order and, on another day, could easily swap places with Ross for me. Not at this precise moment, however. Some will see Duran's relatively low position as heretical - it's not intended to be so and I don't think that being somewhere between 15 and 20 is an insult. However, I can't totally ignore things like his struggles with DeJesus, No Mas and the Kirkland Laing/Jimmy Batten "performances", so, I'm afraid, his partisans will have to sue me!

As for Joe Louis, I'm with the school of thought that places him in the mid-20s and makes him the only other heavyweight, with Ali, who has much business in a top 50. The reasons have been amply discussed elsewhere and I'm not about to rehash them here.

Can't say that I see how there can be a "right or wrong" to this eternal conundrum, certainly not to the extent that would justify some of the stuff that some folk have been throwing at each other. It's supposed to be fun, this board, and the fact that recently, it hasn't seemed much like it is part of the reason that I've given it a wide berth lately. With a bit of luck, that will change as the season of goodwill approaches!

Not you as well! Have you been hacked man?!!

No, mate, but it is a sincerely held belief. I do believe that Mayweather is an extraordinary figher with an unfortunate personality. He would be in my top 5 if he had fought and beaten Pacquiao between 2009 and 2012, as he undoubtedly could have done. There are no excuses - if he had said the word, nothing would have stopped it from happening, whaever the rights and wrongs of drug testing, Arum and 101 other bits of nonsense. As it is, his record looks pretty astonishing from where I'm sitting - to beat the premier light-middleweight of the day, in his late 30s, way past his optimum division and with an ease that bordered on contempt, strikes me as definitive proof of the credentials of one of the outstanding boxers of any generation.

Anyway...it's just an opinion. The great thing about this type of game is that you get to shout a lot of bets without the need to pay out on them.

hazharrison wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:I seem to have missed a bit in the last few weeks. Can never resist this, however:

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

A couple of caveats - I keep swapping Ali and Charles around, so they might be reversed again tomorrow. I'm aware that my regard for Jofre is unusually high. However, if one adds the greatest sustained comeback in all of boxing history to my contention that he was the premier bantam of all time as well, I reckon he deserves it. Pep, Saddler, Pacquiao, Arguello, Duran, Roy Jones and Monzon (perhaps the finest single division fighter in history) would be the next cabs off my rank, in no particular order and, on another day, could easily swap places with Ross for me. Not at this precise moment, however. Some will see Duran's relatively low position as heretical - it's not intended to be so and I don't think that being somewhere between 15 and 20 is an insult. However, I can't totally ignore things like his struggles with DeJesus, No Mas and the Kirkland Laing/Jimmy Batten "performances", so, I'm afraid, his partisans will have to sue me!

As for Joe Louis, I'm with the school of thought that places him in the mid-20s and makes him the only other heavyweight, with Ali, who has much business in a top 50. The reasons have been amply discussed elsewhere and I'm not about to rehash them here.

Can't say that I see how there can be a "right or wrong" to this eternal conundrum, certainly not to the extent that would justify some of the stuff that some folk have been throwing at each other. It's supposed to be fun, this board, and the fact that recently, it hasn't seemed much like it is part of the reason that I've given it a wide berth lately. With a bit of luck, that will change as the season of goodwill approaches!

Not you as well! Have you been hacked man?!!

Swap SRL and Mayweather and this one sounds fair to me.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is no need to be commenting then.

You should take your own advice. Permanently. Its painful watching you try and pretend you know what your talking about when your sat there with boxrec open.

Can we all get along please?  

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There is no need to be commenting then.

You should take your own advice. Permanently. Its painful watching you try and pretend you know what your talking about when your sat there with boxrec open.

Do you have any other lines or is your sole purpose on here to try and antagonise the whole board, it really is quite simple debate the topic in hand or don't both replying at all.

My message is going unheeded.  

captain carrantuohil wrote:I seem to have missed a bit in the last few weeks. Can never resist this, however:

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

A couple of caveats - I keep swapping Ali and Charles around, so they might be reversed again tomorrow. I'm aware that my regard for Jofre is unusually high. However, if one adds the greatest sustained comeback in all of boxing history to my contention that he was the premier bantam of all time as well, I reckon he deserves it. Pep, Saddler, Pacquiao, Arguello, Duran, Roy Jones and Monzon (perhaps the finest single division fighter in history) would be the next cabs off my rank, in no particular order and, on another day, could easily swap places with Ross for me. Not at this precise moment, however. Some will see Duran's relatively low position as heretical - it's not intended to be so and I don't think that being somewhere between 15 and 20 is an insult. However, I can't totally ignore things like his struggles with DeJesus, No Mas and the Kirkland Laing/Jimmy Batten "performances", so, I'm afraid, his partisans will have to sue me!

As for Joe Louis, I'm with the school of thought that places him in the mid-20s and makes him the only other heavyweight, with Ali, who has much business in a top 50. The reasons have been amply discussed elsewhere and I'm not about to rehash them here.

Can't say that I see how there can be a "right or wrong" to this eternal conundrum, certainly not to the extent that would justify some of the stuff that some folk have been throwing at each other. It's supposed to be fun, this board, and the fact that recently, it hasn't seemed much like it is part of the reason that I've given it a wide berth lately. With a bit of luck, that will change as the season of goodwill approaches!

Would you have any agreement with the notion that you prefer defensive fighters of the more cerebral variety as opposed to the wrecking machine types?

I think I see a preference for the lighter weights in your picks which from memory is representative of your like for the lower weight classes.

In terms of Mayweather's record I feel he retired when the greatest challengers were out there at WW, he didn't fight Pacquiao and the likes of Alverez are really not ever going to be remembered by posterity. R.Leonard has much the better wins for me although they were hard won. I would have Floyd in the same ball park as Leonard and Whitaker although behind both of those.

You raise a fair point there Strongy about our preferences for certain styles, I myself prefer the more thoughtful approach. Duran at lightweight was very aggressive but it was for the most part controlled. Subtle movements of the head which I don't see in the approach of Chavez for example.

To your first question, strongy, I think that's probably fair comment, although there wasn't that much that was cerebral about the approach of either Armstrong or Greb to the game!

Do I prefer the lighter fighters? Well, up to a point, although my favourite division has always been 175 and you'll notice that there are a good five who could be said to be among the outstanding representatives of that division's illustrious history in my list. However, I have noticed that most heavyweight champs haven't been as good at their trade as a lot of their lighter contemporaries, so it has tended to follow that I have preferred the smaller guys to the behemoths. Again, there are exceptions - Joe Frazier is among my very favourite fighters, as is Ali.

1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) Greb 4) Charles 5) Ali 6) Langford 7) Ray Leonard 8) Fitzsimmons 9) Duran 10) Mayweather 11) Whitaker 12) Benny Leonard 13) Tunney 14) Ross 15) Monzon

The problem I always have seems to be deciding numbers nine through to twelve. Struggle to separate Duran, Mayweather, Whitaker and Benny and to be honest if you ask me on any other given day I could have them all in a different order. No daylight between any of them and it's a sod that only two of them can get inside that top ten.

Last spot was tricky, too. Wanted to stick Roy in there. Might do on another day. For now, I'll go with Monzon.

captain carrantuohil wrote:To your first question, strongy, I think that's probably fair comment, although there wasn't that much that was cerebral about the approach of either Armstrong or Greb to the game!

Do I prefer the lighter fighters? Well, up to a point, although my favourite division has always been 175 and you'll notice that there are a good five who could be said to be among the outstanding representatives of that division's illustrious history in my list. However, I have noticed that most heavyweight champs haven't been as good at their trade as a lot of their lighter contemporaries, so it has tended to follow that I have preferred the smaller guys to the behemoths. Again, there are exceptions - Joe Frazier is among my very favourite fighters, as is Ali.

I agree that good heavyweight records are thin on the ground but in saying that I think when a good heavyweight comes along in lights up boxings. Although not exclusive to the heavyweights a lot of the early innovators in boxing came from the heavyweight division such as Sullivan with the glover era, Corbett's studied approach, Dempsey's bobbing and weaving attack, Johnson's defence (similar to Floyd maybe), Louis' mastery of punching technique, Ali showing a big man could fight in the style of Ray Robinson and so on. The power of the punches and the potential for KO's adds to the excitement for many.

Light heavy is hard to beat of course given the talent pool over the years. You are also fairly secure in the knowledge there wouldn't be some obese lump fighting or a 6'11" freak of nature that spends the whole night trying to wrestle his opponent.

Had another go at this:

1. SR Robinson
2. H Armstrong
3. M Ali
4. J Louis
5. H Greb
6. R Duran
7. W Pep
8. E Charles
9. B. Leonard
10. J. Wilde
11. SR Leonard
12. A. Moore
13. P Whitaker
14. J Gans
15. M Walker

For those with Jofre -- was he even the greatest ever bantamweight? I'd say Zarate has a claim there. He, too, suffers from a lack of competition -- are you ranking him with an emphasis on skill level?

I'd say that Jofre is about as nailed at bantamweight as anyone, it doesn't always come down to record. His skill level is up there with anyone, he had it all and there's the comeback at featherweight. Legra was a solid champion while Saldivar returning from retirement was still a useful boxer.

If you're going on just record Haz, how do you have Wilde so high? While the biggest issue I'd have is Greb below Louis.

Seems like Mayweather is in a top 10 by consensus..............

Consensus shows robbo is number 1 which i don't mind.......Wilde is an interesting choice...

Kind of funny I've been nothing but hammered for saying Mayweather is top 10 for weeks and 3/4 of these lists have him in.......

I couldn't really care less Truss, I have no issue with how people rate them but the manner in which you go about it annoys. There is no right or wrong answer it's purely opinion based so being force fed you're wrong in rating anyone highly is not what this site was about.

Jofre would still be my pick at Bantam, but the gap I have between him and Zarate at 118 isn't as big as it used to be. Obviously Jofre's comeback as a Feather elevates him in to a different league to Zarate in a pound for pound sense.
 
Fact is, though, that I don't think there's a great deal between the level of opposition each man faced as a Bantamweight. The decision that cost Jofre his title against Harada, the best Bantam he faced, was contentious, no doubt about that (I had it a draw last time I watched it, but I could easily have given Harada a 10-8 in the fourth to edge it in his favour, or likewise I could easily have made the 10-10 round I had a 10-9 for Jofre to have his nose in front), but that verdict wasn't even in the same stratosphere as the one Zarate was on the wrong end of when losing his title to Pintor (oddly enough, I remember the captain being slightly amazed on the Hall of Fame thread a couple of years back when I mentioned that I had Zarate "only" four or five points ahead at the end!).
 
A few more ranked fighters on Eder's resume at Bantam, but on the other hand I'm not sure he has a singe entry as good as Zarate's demolition of Zamora.

On that note, I could see a reasonable enough argument to put Zarate ahead, but the absolute hammering he got off Gomez in his title tilt at 122 knocks him back a shade, and behind the brilliant Brazilian. Fair enough, Gomez was an outstanding fighter and just as phenomenal a puncher as Zarate, but I just can't see Jofre being so emphatically trounced by anyone between 118 and 126 as Zarate was there.

And while some may think that the step up in weight (hardly a huge leap in any case, but I digress!) might earn Zarate a pass, at the end of the day Gomez was hardly a massive Super-Bantam (look how small he looked, not just in height but in overall stature, compared to Sal when he first dipped his toes at 126). Common knowledge that Gomez was a bit of a lax trainer for the most part and he didn't like cutting weight. You could argue that he effectively did himself out of a better legacy by refusing to do that little bit of extra work in the gym to win his first title in a 'proper' division rather than what was then a brand new one, and as such I can't quite shake the feeling that, just maybe, Zarate was a shade fortunate that Gomez was just north of him.

With regards to Jofre's return at Featherweight, well it was mightily impressive, for sure. But one thing does rankle me about it, and that's the rumours of Legra basically being shafted (perhaps not "shafted", but harshly treated!) when they boxed for the title. Now I'll get it out there early - I've never seen the fight in full, as I just haven't been able to find it (not sure if full footage exists). But from what I have seen, Legra was denied a perfectly legal knockdown (not counted on the cards when it should have been) and also had more than one point deducted, some on pretty flimsy fouls. I've seen a few articles translated from the Spanish-speaking press which suggest that most observers had the fight extremely close either way, and that the two cards which had Jofre a five-point winner were rough justice on Legra indeed.

I get the impression that you can make a case for Jofre winning the fight, even more so with the deductions, but that it was hardly clear-cut, and that Legra had a right to feel hard done by, too. Similar maybe to something like Parlov-Conteh or Peterson-Khan?

But as I said, I'm just trying to piece the bits together on that one. If anyone is in the know, then feel free to shed a bit more light!

I don't think Jofre has a good enough record to rank with this lot - great as he was.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Kind of funny I've been nothing but hammered for saying Mayweather is top 10 for weeks and 3/4 of these lists have him in.......

No-one cares whether you rank him highly - it's when you write "top ten - fact" that gets everyone's back up. Fact is, he doesn't rate that high with experts and historians. Then you disparage that lot.

Try and take that view onto another forum and you'd be laughed off it.

1) Sam Langford
2) Sugar Ray Robinson
3) Harry Greb
4) Bob Fitzsimmons
5) Henry Armstrong
6) Ezzard Charles
7) Eder Jofre
8) Muhammad Ali
9) Joe Louis
10) Roberto Duran
11) Joe Gans
12) Willie Pep
13) Charley Burley
14) Benny Leonard
15) Sugar Ray Leonard

Cheers Rodders

Has anyone seen Langford fight or are those who rank him highly just want to show off their boxing knowledge.

Personally I'd rather use my own eyes for empirical evidence.

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/

Has anyone who contributed to this list ever served with or under Alexander the Great?

The Burkina Faso army would destroy Alexander the great. So would the costa rican police force seeing as they don't have an army.

Someone please tell me why a blacksmith is rated above Ali.

Think a more appropriate term for him would be a former blacksmith. Larry Holmes used to work in a car wash, rarely see him described as a car washer.

Some have decided to spend thier time reading about the history of the sport and acknowledge achievements in deprived difficult eras. Rather than watching 5minutes on you tube and coming to conclusion fighter a would've beat fighter b.

Cheers Rodders

So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Do find the argument that you have not seen someone therefore cannot rate them a particularly specious one. Seems pretty unique to boxing the idea that you cannot do historical research on a subject and draw a conclusion based on that research. Tend to think it tends to be a reflection of the fact that certain people cannot be bothered or choose not to do such research and so dismiss the idea anyone else could do so.

From a personal perspective I own books on 14 of the 15 guys I have in my top ten and the only one missing is Charles, for who, shamefully no such literature exists. However I do have books on a good number of his opponents such as Walcott, Charles, Bivins, Moore and Burley. Not sure based on doing such reading and research it should be so difficult to formulate an opinion about their abilities or standings.

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Yes achievements statistically say so.

Cheers Rodders

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Regardless of how he rates him, I don't see the relevance of his job and you using it to put him down. Ali followed Islam... Can you tell me how someone who follows Islam can be rated higher than a blacksmith? Equally nonsensical.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Regardless of how he rates him, I don't see the relevance of his job and you using it to put him down. Ali followed Islam... Can you tell me how someone who follows Islam can be rated higher than a blacksmith? Equally nonsensical.

In all fairness he has convinced me, I have already moved Holmes down my heavyweight rankings a few places, no way is a car washer top five.

Wonder where that leaves a boilermaker ?
Might as well write him out of history

To be honest I find books on boxers entertaining and interesting. But I take the opinions of boxers of other boxers with more than a pinch of salt. They tend to wax lyrical to the point of being total horse manure. Foreman being a prime example. The same applies to writers who apply their inherent bias to boost their favourites.

If no footage exists I am not ranking them. I'll acknowledge them for being great and achieving great feats (Greb) but to say greb would beat hagler is laughable (if applying the Sugar time travel method).

But to say Langford is the best boxer who ever existed is laughable. To say a blacksmith and part time boxer could stop making horse shoes and take on and beat Ali is beyond laughable.

Has anyone said he could take on and beat Ali?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Regardless of how he rates him, I don't see the relevance of his job and you using it to put him down. Ali followed Islam... Can you tell me how someone who follows Islam can be rated higher than a blacksmith? Equally nonsensical.

Outside of your idiocy I don't see the relevance. Many boxers are religious people. Unless you believe that it is a hindrance equal to being a part time boxer.

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.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Regardless of how he rates him, I don't see the relevance of his job and you using it to put him down. Ali followed Islam... Can you tell me how someone who follows Islam can be rated higher than a blacksmith? Equally nonsensical.

Outside of your idiocy I don't see the relevance.  Many boxers are religious people.  Unless you believe that it is a hindrance equal to being a part time boxer.

Wladamir has studied throughout his career. Has it harmed him?

You are a moron of the highest order.

Rowley wrote:Has anyone said he could take on and beat Ali?

If you rate him higher the assumption is that if they fought Ali would lose. Or it could be that he was a multi weight champion and therefore should be ranked higher. Fair enough. But where would that leave other multi weight champs especially Pac?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:So you're saying that blacksmith is a better fighter than Ali, pound for pound.

Regardless of how he rates him, I don't see the relevance of his job and you using it to put him down. Ali followed Islam... Can you tell me how someone who follows Islam can be rated higher than a blacksmith? Equally nonsensical.

Outside of your idiocy I don't see the relevance.  Many boxers are religious people.  Unless you believe that it is a hindrance equal to being a part time boxer.

Wladamir has studied throughout his career. Has it harmed him?

You are a moron of the highest order.

Ok

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?