Ring Mag's Doug Fischer's Greatest 20 Fighters Since WW II

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/355849-commentary-floyd-mayweather-jr-s-place-among-the-modern-greats

1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Henry Armstrong
3.Willie Pep
4.Ezzard Charles
5.Muhammad Ali
6.Archie Moore
7.Joe Louis
8.Roberto Duran
9.Billy Conn
10.Sugar Ray Leonard
11.Pernell Whitaker
12.Julio Cesar Chavez
13.Ike Williams
14.Emile Griffith
15.Carlos Ortiz
16.Sandy Saddler
17.Jimmy Bivins
18.Sammy Angott
19.Evander Holyfield
20.Bernard Hopkins

Forty honorable mention (in alphabetical order): Alexis Arguello, Marco Antonio Barrera, Carmen Basilio, Wilfred Benitez, Charley Burley, Joe Calzaghe, Miguel Canto, Marcel Cerdan, Oscar De La Hoya, George Foreman, Bob Foster, Joe Frazier, Kid Gavilan, Wilfredo Gomez, Marvin Hagler, Fighting Harada, Thomas Hearns, Larry Holmes, Eder Jofre, Harold Johnson, Roy Jones Jr., Jake LaMotta, Lennox Lewis, Ricardo Lopez, Rocky Marciano, Lloyd Marshall, Juan Manuel Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Erik Morales, Carlos Monzon, Jose Napoles, Ruben Olivares, Manuel Ortiz, Manny Pacquiao, Luis Rodriguez, Salvador Sanchez, Felix Trinidad, Holman Williams, Tony Zale and Carlos Zarate.

Sadly have to admit i dont know a couple of names on the list i think his number one choice is correct though

I actually agree with Hopkins being included. He might not be fun to watch but what he is accomplishing at his age is something else. he always takes on all comers and don't think anybody in history would have an easy night with him.

Not a bad list overall, but Conn being at nine is crazy and I'd definitely have Arguello and Roy in there.

Oh, and just realised that Mayweather hasn't made the top twenty. Sorry Doug, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a bit of a joke.

For me, you cant have Ali in there unless you also have Frazier.

I also find it strange that Tyson isn't in his "honourable mentions" list. (Mike or Fury!)

It's always hard to make a list like this that people generally agree on but for me the top 10 is more in line with my thoughts than 10-20. I won't pick it apart as I'm rubbish and inconsistent when making ATG lists but there are some questions regarding some of those placing's.

I'm no Fan of Floyd but it's generally agreed he's top 20 and then Hopking in but RJJ out? I'm not sure either is guaranteed a top 20 place but as great as Hopkins recent achievements are Roy will always be slightly ahead of Bernard in my list. Is Holy more deserving than Lewis? Duran above Leonard always draws a good debate.

Floyd should be slotted in between 15 - 20.

Billy Conn 175 champ 39-41...lost to Louis in 41/42 can't remember..

9th greatest since WW2...Makes sense doesn't it!!!

D***head list from a D***head.

I like Doug Fisher, he posted my email to him in the Ring Monday Mail Mag once in regards to Haye.

Armstrong retired in 1945.

Conn and Moore too high.

At least he didn't include Floyd so he's not all bad.

Think it precludes anyone whose final fight was prior to '43.

He explains his criteria in the article. Lot of emphasis on quality of opposition.

Which will be why Floyd doesn't get a mention.

Michael Spinks not even getting an honourable mention, I've just realised. The more I look at this list the more I'm finding things I'd question!

Gap between Pep and Saddler needs to be a bit narrower, though it pains me to say it. In this instance, I think it's more a case of Pep being too high rather than Saddler being too low.

Spinks below Conn is a joke anyway..

Where is Jr ???......Joke..

88Chris05 wrote:

Gap between Pep and Saddler needs to be a bit narrower, though it pains me to say it. In this instance, I think it's more a case of Pep being too high rather than Saddler being too low.

Thought the same myself.

Holyfield ????....Ike Williams ??

It's more of a guy trying to brag about his knowledge of names than a serious list..

Seems more like a list of his favourite fighters, Conn in the top ten is baffling while Moore should be closer to Bivins than he is Charles.

Angott, Louis, Chavez, Ortiz, Holyfield and Williams are all far too high while Arguello, Jofre, Mayweather, Jones and Pacquiao should all be in the top 20.

Unsurprisingly the one modern fighter in the top 20 is a throwback.

Probably need to read the criteria Truss:

1. Quality of opposition. The more hall-of-fame enshrined opponents – or fighters that most knowledgeable observers believe will one day be in the IBHOF – that a fighter has faced, the higher he was ranked on my list.

In general, a victory over a hall of famer earned more points than a loss or draw, but not in every case. I took into account the natural weight classes of the fighters and the division the bout took place in.

For example, Marvin Halger and Roberto Duran, two hall of famers, fought in 1983. Halger defended his undisputed middleweight championship with a unanimous but competitive 15-round decision. However, Duran – a natural lightweight – received more credit for that bout in my rankings analysis than did Hagler, a natural middleweight and one of the best 160 pounders of all time.

I also took into account where the fighters were in their respective careers. A victory over a faded hall of famer obviously counted less than a victory – or even a draw or competitive loss – against a hall of famer who was at or near his prime.

For example, Rocky Marciano – who made the lists of eight out of the 20 experts polled – has victories over fellow hall of famers Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore; however, the advanced ages of that trio was enough to keep “The Rock” out of my top 20.

Fighters also received consideration for the number of champions, titleholders, and bona-fide top-10 contenders they faced. Titleholders didn’t necessarily rate higher than top contenders. For example, a fight with Bert Lytell, a top middleweight contender during the 1940s who never received a shot at the title and isn’t in the hall of fame, is worth a hell of a lot more than a victory over a modern alphabet titleholder, such as Victor Ortiz or Andre Berto, in my view. (This stuff goes without saying, right?)

2. Consensus recognition as the best, or one of the top fighters of all time, in a specific division. Fighters who have established themselves – in the eyes of historians, media and fans – as being among the five-to-10 best boxers ever in a single weight class received a huge boost in my ratings. And I wasn’t alone with this criterion.

True legends, such as Sugar Ray Robinson – widely regarded as the one of the best welterweights and middleweights ever (if not the best) – Muhammad Ali, one of the top two heavyweights of all time (along with Louis), and Duran, the people’s choice for greatest lightweight ever, made the lists of all 20 experts polled for the magazine feature.

Louis, Willie Pep, who is widely regarded as the best featherweight ever, and Henry Armstrong, who often makes the all-time top 10 in three weight classes (featherweight, lightweight and welterweight), made almost all 20 lists.

This criterion helped both Holyfield, regarded as the best cruiserweight ever and one of the 10 greatest heavyweights, and Hopkins, who is considered one of the top five middleweights by many historians, to make my top 20.

Also, I gave more consideration to fighters who are among the all-time best of the original weight classes – such as lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight, which were established in the 1880s – than those who top the modern divisions that were started up in the 1980s, such as strawweight, junior bantamweight, super middleweight and cruiserweight. So Ricardo Lopez, the consensus choice as the greatest 105 pounder, and Jones, who I view as the top 168 pounder ever, didn’t get the same push that B-Hop did for establishing himself as one of the all-time best 160 pounders (or that Holyfield got for being recognized as one of the great heavyweight champs).

3. Being a top contender in multiple weight classes. One didn’t have to win championships or even alphabet belts in separate divisions for this consideration because I realize the sport wasn’t handing out world titles like candy on Halloween during the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s. So standouts such as Archie Moore, Billy Conn and Ezzard Charles, who fought hall of fame opposition in three divisions – middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight – but “only” held championships in one division (Moore and Conn at light heavyweight; Charles at heavyweight) still received extra consideration.

Fighters who were multiple division champs or top contenders during the eras of eight, 10 and 12 weight classes received more consideration than those of the current era of 17 weight classes.

4. Winning world titles. The undisputed championships that fighters won in the era before multiple “world” titles are worth more than single sanctioning organization belts in my view. Fighters who were part of the fractured-titles era (post-1960s) who held or unified all of the major titles in their weight classes, as Holyfield did at both cruiserweight and heavyweight, Hagler and Hopkins did at middleweight, Pernell Whitaker did at lightweight, and Tyson did at heavyweight, received more consideration than fighters who only held one or two belts in a particular weight class.



Bonus points/considerations (the following accomplishments resulted in an extra push in my ratings):

* Fighters who won 150 or more bouts – Pep, who won a sublime 229 prize fights and is the only “modern boxer” with over 200 victories, received a tremendous push up my rankings for this accomplishment. Moore (who came close to the 200-win club with 185 victories), Robinson (173) and Armstrong (150) were also boosted in my rankings for winning as many fights as they did. All four are in my top 10. The boxing world will never see these kinds of stats again.

* Fighters who won more than 100 bouts – Holman Williams, one of the great African-American contenders of the 1930s/‘40s who never received a title shot, tops this group with 146 career victories. I was pleased to see his name on three lists. Sandy Saddler (144), who was on 11 lists, Ike Williams (127), Kid Gavilan (108), Luis Rodriguez (107), Chavez (107), Marcel Cerdan (105) and Duran (103) all received extra consideration from Yours Truly.

* Fighters who set divisional and all-time records – Armstrong (for simultaneously holding three world titles and setting the welterweight title defense record), Louis (for the all-time title defense record in any weight class), Chavez (for the most title-bout victories and title bouts in history) and Hopkins (for being the oldest champion, having the longest middleweight title reign and setting the middleweight title defense record) all cleaned up with this one.

* Fighters who faced the fellow elite fighters of their divisions/eras – Ali and Joe Frazier received a push for facing each other when both were undefeated with legitimate claims to the heavyweight championship. So did Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns, who fought each other in their primes, when both were clearly the top two welterweights in the world and among the best of any weight. So did Salvador Sanchez and Wilfredo Gomez for settling who was better when the Mexican master was the best featherweight in the world and the Puerto Rican star was the top junior featherweight (arguably ever). So did Whitaker and Chavez, who fought each other when they topped the mythical pound-for-pound lists of every boxing publication and sports writer.

Mayweather and Pacquiao dropped the ball bigtime with this one, and it cost them both in my final analysis. Even Jones, who is rightfully criticized for cherry picking opponents during his prime years, fought James Toney when Lights Out was considered the best super middleweight in the game and was near the top of most pound-for-pound rankings.

Young fans who bitch and moan about how unfair it is to compare modern boxers to Golden Age legends like Pep, Moore and Robinson, who fought more than 200 bouts, should take note that Ali “only” had 61 fights. Whitaker (who fought 46 pro bouts) and Leonard (who fought 40) were on almost every list for the magazine poll (usually in the top 10). Gomez (48), Sanchez (46) and Frazier, who had less than 40 bouts (37), made it onto a handful of lists. All six are considered great fighters by most historians. It’s not always about volume or longevity. Sometimes it’s about making the most of your prime (and in Sanchez’s case, taking advantage of a tragically short time on this earth).

Bivins was past his best by '45; Angott was underrated; but not by this much; Armstrong wasn't a great fighter in the post-war era; Conn, Williams and Holyfield were ornaments to the game but wouldn't rank above Jofre, Arguello or Monzon, in my book. How much of Joe Louis' career post-45 was really that fantastic? Floyd and Pacquiao obviously merit selection as well, whatever Fischer's criteria for entry (by most of the criteria he does use, the omission of Jofre from the 20 is nothing short of inexplicable)?

I don't think his jump off point is '45. It's any fighter whose final fight was post '43 I think (and so he's taking Armstong and Joe's careers as a whole).

I guess Jofre falls down on the quality of opposition thing -- how many HOFers did he fight?

In short he's gone through the IBHOF modern list, ranked them and then come up with an elaborately worded set of criteria to include fighters who aren't post war.

Not many, it's true (ancient Saldivar), but still...the best bantamweight of all time, according to many, undisputed champ for years, making plenty of defences and beating the best that the division had to offer, plus more than 70 wins and 50 KOs, which is a lot for one of the little blokes fighting after WW II. No bonus points for the best overall comeback in the history of the sport also seems a bit tough.

By his own criteria, Jofre can't have missed by much.

I'd be interested to see the other lists (and the overall top 20) but don't fancy buying the mag. Went to the dogs years ago.

No excuse for Conn above Spinks and Jones jr..

Spinks obviously got marked down for some of the criteria in point one. Tyson was a poor show and Holmes is now viewed as a great win but past his best. Its unfair but that's my guess for his exclusion.

Even with the spin you put on it............It's a better career than Conn.........

I wouldn't say Spinks had a better career than Conn. Spinks has the two best wins but Conn beat more top opposition and he did it from MW to HW.

It's a close enough call. Conn slightly better in the P4P stakes I reckon.

Still Conn too high and Spinks deserves a shout.

Spinks dominated the 175 division longer and became the first lightheavy champion in history to win the big one against the 4/5 best heavy of alltime...

Conn can't match that..

DuransHorse wrote:Spinks obviously got marked down for some of the criteria in point one. Tyson was a poor show and Holmes is now viewed as a great win but past his best.  Its unfair but that's my guess for his exclusion.

If Holmes was past it...Then look at Louis.............

Braddock lost to nearly everyone before Louis beat him
Schmelling lost to Sharkey " " "
Sharkey lost to Carnera " " "
Baer lost to braddock " " "
Carnera lost to Baer " " "

So in effect Louis beat dog turd..................

So your argument sucks..

Lopez, Mustafa, Qawi, Johnson and Davis on it's own trumps Conn not to mention actually beating Holmes fair and square first time round, there is acres between the pair.

Conn was very fortunate in a way to be called up for military service because if he hadn't a certain world class group of fighters would have been chomping at the bit to face him.

His explanation is that Conn faced HOF oppo in three legit divisions (Zale, Zivic, Apostoli - is he in? - Louis etc).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Lopez, Mustafa, Qawi, Johnson and Davis on it's own trumps Conn not to mention actually beating Holmes fair and square first time round, there is acres between the pair.

Absolutely..........

Besides Conn shouldn't be on it anyway.............Since WW2.... should mean what it say's..

hazharrison wrote:His explanation is that Conn faced HOF oppo in three legit divisions (Zale, Zivic, Apostoli - is he in? - Louis etc).

How much credit do we give Conn for fighting perennial loser Zivic?

The only hall of famers worthy of the tag either of them beat are Larry Holmes, Zale and Qawi; Zivic, Apostoli and Corbett III are three prime examples of why we shouldn't take the IBHOF too seriously.

McGrain's picks from his 100 greatest fighters epic: Conn 27, Corbett III 56, Zivic 91, Yarosz 79, Louis 9. Can't see Qawi or Zale.

You've got me there Haz you've found a list as per usual and Zivic for all intents and purposes is a glorified journeyman, he seems to get an elevated placing based on losing to everyone decent that wasn't called Henry Armstrong.

Cuevas and Gatti are in the hall of fame but Curry and Hamed are not while you're personal favourite Mayweather has wins over 6 cast iron IBHOF entrants which could possibly rise to 8 or 9.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You've got me there Haz you've found a list as per usual and Zivic for all intents and purposes is a glorified journeyman, he seems to get an elevated placing based on losing to everyone decent that wasn't called Henry Armstrong.

Cuevas and Gatti are in the hall of fame but Curry and Hamed are not while you're personal favourite Mayweather has wins over 6 cast iron IBHOF entrants which could possibly rise to 8 or 9.

There aren't many of those lists about - first I could find (think Boxing News did one but it was widely criticised). If Zivic was nothing more than a journeyman, why do so many historians rate him? Why did Sugar Ray Robinson claim he learned more from Zivic than anyone else?

Mayweather will defo have six on his record. I guess he must fall foul of never having beaten them at their best. Also, Fischer docks both he and Pac for not facing each other.

I think people need to dig a beat deeper into Conn's career. He beat a lot of current, former and future world champions over three weight classes.

It's a bit of a facade to talk about Holmes without mentioning he was on the slide when Spinks got to him.

Somebody around here likes to run Duran down for the manner in which he lost to Hearn's. To say Spinks was rolled like a bum by Tyson would be kind to Spinks.

Conn fought a prime Louis and his performance goes down as one of the best losing efforts of all time.

I must admit, after looking through his record I underrated Conn.

That's the thing with Zivic he was a useful fighter to face if you were on an upward progression, he was a master of the dark arts and a lot could be learnt facing him but a hall of fame worthy boxer he certainly is not.

Was Conn beating his HOF opposition at their bests in their best division?

Zivic's opposition is astonishing:

Robinson, Conn, LaMotta, Burley, Kid Azteca, Bob Montgomery, Beau Jack, Henry Armstrong, Freddie Cochrane, Lew Jenkins, Izzy Jannazzo, Phil Furr, Bummy Davis, Sammy Angott, Lou Ambers, Jimmy Leto.

Dude...

FRITZIE ZIVIC
Birth date: May 8, 1913
Date of death: May 16, 1984
Birthplace: Lawrenceville, Penn.
Nickname: “The Croat Comet”
Weight class: Welterweight
Record: 159-64-9 (80 knockouts) with one no-contest
Title held: World welterweight
Best performances: Charley Burley (W 10), Mike Kaplan (W 10), Sammy Angott (W 10), Henry Armstrong (W 15, KO 12), Lew Jenkins (KO 10), Red Cochrane (W 10), Jake LaMotta (W 15), Kid Azteca (W 10, W 10, W 10), Billy Arnold (W 8), Izzy Jannazzo (KO 4).
Year of IBHOF induction: 1993
Background: Considered one of the dirtiest fighters of his generation … One of five boxing brothers born to immigrant parents … Raised in the hardscrabble Ninth Ward in Lawrenceville, near Pittsburgh … Zivic once said of his childhood neighborhood, “You either had to fight or stay in the house. We went out.” … Made pro debut in October 1931, scoring first-round TKO of Al Rettinger … Fought during an era when pros sometimes stepped into the ring multiple times during a month … Broke Lou Ambers’ jaw in 10-round decision loss in July 1935 … Survived eight-fight losing streak from August 1935 through April 1936 to remain viable welterweight contender … Had winning streak snapped at five fights by future Hall of Famer Billy Conn via 10-round split decision loss in December 1936 … Began wonderful trilogy with Charley Burley by taking 10-round split decision in March 1938 (but would lose the next two by decision) … Posted six-fight winning streak, topped off in August 1940 by decision victory over Sammy Angott, setting up title shot against world champion Henry Armstrong … Captured world welterweight title with 15-round decision over Armstrong in October 1940 at Madison Square Garden. The fight was even on two cards going into the final round, which Zivic won handily to take the title … Fought high-profile non-title bout next against Al “Bummy” Davis in November 1940 in New York, resulting in one of the dirtiest fights of all-time … Thumbed Davis and hit him on the break in the opening round, causing Davis to respond with 10 low blows, which led to a second-round disqualification win for Zivic … Retained world title with 12-round TKO in rematch with Armstrong in January 1941. … Title reign came to abrupt end in second defense with 15-round decision loss to Freddie “Red” Cochrane in July 1941 .. Never received another title shot … Fought the best of his time, mixing it up with Ray Robinson twice (0-2), Bob Montgomery (0-1), Cochrane (1-1) and Armstrong (2-1) … Great fan appeal despite reputation for low blows, gouging, thumbing and lacing as part of a straight-ahead brawling style … Ended career in January 1949 … Fought seven future Hall of Famers and nine world champions .. Spent post-fight career working as a boilermaker and road worker for the Allegheny County Highway Department. Also gave boxing lessons … Died on May 16, 1984, following a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease.

A glorified journeyman yet he beat Burley, Angott and Armstrong?

The long awaited posting of an article to try an back up a point on a fighter you know absolutely nothing about but a few historians say he's good so it's gospel.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The long awaited posting of an article to try an back up a point on a fighter you know absolutely nothing about but a few historians say he's good so it's gospel.

I know a bit about him - not an expert on that era (unlike yourself).

Leonard Morrow beat Bivins, Moore and Lytell but it doesn't make him worthy of the hall of fame, you have to look at the wins in the contest of their careers and where they were at that time. Boxing in the 30's and 40's isn't like it is now, you got matched tough almost straight away and from then on so a few unexpected losses were to be expected. Form back then was very up and down, there was a time when Jackie Wilson was rated incredibly highly until he fought LaMotta and his stock fell dramatically.

Zivic was a tough and rugged journeyman who on his day could give the top guys a decent fight but if they performed to their fullest he would not beat them and you then factor in that he was a mob fighter whom it could be beneficial losing to.

Is that supposed to be your authoritative take on him? Sounds like regurgitated gobbledygook.

Probably just stuck with the profile above myself (from Ring mag after he was inducted into IBHOF).

Esteemed historian Cliff Rold ranked him the 20th best welterweight all time. Not bad for a journeyman (higher than Mayweather back in 2009).

He also beat LaMotta and ran Conn close. Here's Mike Casey's take:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/weblog/news.php?p=19265&more=1

Hell of a journeyman....

Zivic fought seven future Hall of Famers and nine world champions;

He defeated such men as Henry Armstrong, Charley Burley, Sammy Angott, Lew Jenkins, Giacobe "Jake" LaMotta, Freddie "Red" Cochrane, Al "Bummy" Davis, Johnny Jadick, Anthony "Izzy" Jannazzo, Jackie Burke, Eddie Booker, Harry Weekly, Bobby Pacho, "Baby" Salvy Saban, Kenny LaSalle, Kid Azteca, Milt Aron, Saverio Turiello, Johnny Barbara, Laddie Tonielli, Tony Falco, Chuck Woods, Harry Dublinsky, "Baby" Sal Sorio, Eddie Ran, Pete "K.O." Castillo, Maxie Berger, Reuben Shank, Carmen Notch, Billy Arnold and "Wild" Bill McDowell


One of those journeymen that won a world title and beat a lot of the best out there.

I'd actually have him as my P4P No.1 Journeyman of all time and by a distance.

The Burley win was meant to a robbery and was later avenged