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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Don't think anyone would deny that, for a long time, Conn was / has been given a bit of a rough deal in some quarters. Bit of the old Meldrick Taylor syndrome, whereby he's remembered by some primarily for a fight he lost, which doesn't do him justice.

That said, I could never see him as a more accomplished fighter than Spinks, and I'd take Michael's career over Billy's any day as well. Spinks made a bit of history in becoming the first Light-Heavy champion to beat the man at Heavyweight. Conn came close, but ultimately didn't make it, same as Bob Foster, Archie Moore, Tommy Loughran etc. In terms of great Light-Heavyweight champions, Conn's one of a group whereas Spinks is one of a kind, or at least he was until Michael Moorer and Roy came along, although neither of them duplicated his feat of being top dog at both weights even if Michael soon lost that mantle to Tyson.

A word on the Tyson defeat, by the way. It's definitely an embarrassing one for Spinks and knocks him down a peg or two on these kind of lists, but let's not forget that Conn performed miserably in the Louis rematch as well. Inactivity due to military service obviously meant that both were no longer at their best, but that didn't stop the fight drawing a gate in excess of a million dollars (still a pretty momentous occasion even then, as Louis was the first boxer since Dempsey who could scale that kind of height) and the boxing world expected a lot more from him - he was marginally shorter odds for the rematch than he had been for their first fight, and don't forget that Conn had been the shortest-priced challenger to Louis since Schmeling three years beforehand in any case for that 1941 bout.

Conn's opposition en-route to the Light-Heavy title and then in his defences of it was definitely impressive, but for me the era Spinks dominated in at 175 is one of the three really golden generations for the weight class, the others being the days of Tunney, Carpentier, Gibbons, Greb, Loughran etc in the twenties and of course the era that came just after Conn's time as champion, where the likes of Moore, Charles, Bivins, Maxim, Harold Johnson etc were at or near their best and facing off with regularity. There's seldom been a weak era at Light-Heavy, but Conn just missed out on a really golden one, while Spinks thrived in one. Bit unlucky on Conn's part, but hey, you can't award points for what you think might have happened.

Let's just take the best Light-Heavies of the post-War (or thereabouts) era; obviously Conn would be amongst them, but so too would be Spinks, Roy Jones, Foster, Moore, Harold Johnson, Michalczewski and Bivins. It's a fantastic group, but chances are that Conn is only about half way up that mini list, so trying to pass him off as ninth overall since the War across all the divisions is pretty far-fetched, I think.

Conn is too high no doubt but it's a bit harsh running down his post war performance again Louis. It was a poor fight by too men over the hill.

Conn had fought 9 current or future world champions by the time he was 21 y.o.. I don't think there is much argument against Conn having fought and beaten more quality fighters than Spinks. As it's clear Spinks in two fights has the greater achievement.

It's great wins (Spinks) versus consistingly beating top level opposition over a lot of fights (Conn).

Conn also has a very good middleweight resume and was a small LHW. He fought in the 170's lbs range at heavyweight. His win over Bob Pastor at HW is notable and in 10 odd fights at heavy he was only beaten by Louis.

Conn probably beat a few more respectable names than Spinks across his whole career, I'd agree there, but in some cases he was holding significant weight advantages over those guys (doesn't stop them from still being good wins, of course) and he also dropped decisions to some of them as well at his best weight and in or around his prime.

He made up for that with some impressive showings at Heavyweight where he was usually giving away plenty of weight himself, but as I said before, he fell at the final hurdle in trying to become the Heavyweight champion, whereas Spinks didn't.

The best fully-fledged Light-Heavies that Conn beat, like Bettina and Lesnevich, weren't quite in the same class as Eddie Mustafa Muhammad or Qawi for me, and Spinks never lost at his best weight to boot.

Those two guys were world's apart in terms of style, but Spinks figured both out and on top of everything else just comes across as the more complete fighter in my eyes. Conn had great hand speed and combination punching as the first Louis fight shows, but Spinks could unlock tight defences (Eddie), deal with non-stop, skilled inside fighters (Qawi) and on top of that had that genuine power that Conn didn't really have at the highest level, as Marvin Johnson can attest to.

Conn was great and all, but not in the same class as Spinks in my eyes....But good debate all the same.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

It wasn't really my argument, I was just trying understand how the list was formulated. I agree that Spinks missing out on top 40 is unfair. I know your strong thoughts and opinions on Louis having read this forum for a time so I won't begin to argue with you on that one. I recall you rank Duran above Leonard though so we can agree on that!

Haz, can you post the opinions of more historians please, it's exactly why I come on here as seemingly you haven't an original thought in your head.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz, can you post the opinions of more historians please, it's exactly why I come on here as seemingly you haven't an original thought in your head.

And your "original thoughts" are what exactly, you odious little turd? You have the intelligence of a house fly.

Doesn't take much to rile you does it Haz, i'm eagerly awaiting you posting another opinion of one of your historian heroes.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Doesn't take much to rile you does it Haz, i'm eagerly awaiting you posting another opinion of one of your historian heroes.

Fischer is no hero of mine. Ok writer, passionate guy. Eats Floyd groupies like yourself for breakfast.

I'm a Floyd groupie because I don't bow to you and you're regurgitated aimless opinions, good one that Haz, you do make me chuckle with your false sense of grandeur when in fact you're clueless.

***Await witty abusive reply***

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a Floyd groupie because I don't bow to you and you're regurgitated aimless opinions, good one that Haz, you do make me chuckle with your false sense of grandeur when in fact you're clueless.

***Await witty abusive reply***

Do you actually have any purpose on here than trying to abuse people?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a Floyd groupie because I don't bow to you and you're regurgitated aimless opinions, good one that Haz, you do make me chuckle with your false sense of grandeur when in fact you're clueless.

***Await witty abusive reply***

I don't regurgitate anything thanks (unlike yourself and your "original thoughts").

Citing expert opinion to help form an opinion is pretty standard debating tack in most walks of life (unlike 606 of course, where uninsightful "original thought" rules).

Steffan wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a Floyd groupie because I don't bow to you and you're regurgitated aimless opinions, good one that Haz, you do make me chuckle with your false sense of grandeur when in fact you're clueless.

***Await witty abusive reply***

Do you actually have any purpose on here than trying to abuse people?

Most debating does require opinion instead of just third party articles which you try and pass off as fact, nobody on here gives a crap, you'd be taken far more seriously if you tried engaging your brain instead of just using google for everything.

Steffan wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a Floyd groupie because I don't bow to you and you're regurgitated aimless opinions, good one that Haz, you do make me chuckle with your false sense of grandeur when in fact you're clueless.

***Await witty abusive reply***

Do you actually have any purpose on here than trying to abuse people?

I should instead be more like you Steffan and use V2 as a tool to run down anything and everything to do with England, bravo outdone yourself with the hypocrisy this time.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Most debating does require opinion instead of just third party articles which you try and pass off as fact, nobody on here gives a crap, you'd be taken far more seriously if you tried engaging your brain instead of just using google for everything.

I haven't tried to pass this off as anything but an interesting article. Appreciate you have difficulty following that. I'd be "taken far more seriously"? What an odd little fellow you are to covet such a thing. I comment on here for a bit of light relief (usually with one eye on TV).

Good luck trying to be taken more seriously with these types of acidic, pedantic posts. Sad act.

I'm surprised that Mike Tyson didn't make the honorable mentioned list, he would have made mine.

Up until he lost to Douglas he was 37-0, with 9 title defences. From what I remember, he never ducked an opponent and at the time was thought of as a heavyweight great.

I guess he suffers like Roy Jones does due to his later defeats but if he's not a top 20 fighter, and doesn't make the honorable list of 40 fighters, then that means there are 60 fighters that rank above him since 1945. Seems a little harsh in my view. I think he should have at least made the honorable list.

There's a lot of theories about why Tyson gets completely brushed aside in this kind of thing I guess, Atila. Some people take it a bit too seriously when his YouTube KO reel disciples who couldn't pick Joe Louis out of a line up of two start spouting about how he was the best ever and completely untouchable in his 'prime' and try to get too clever in going the opposite way sometimes to try and compensate.

Then there's his outside-the-ring life and general thug persona, which has been known to make some writers / historians get a bit giddy. Colin Hart reasoned that Tyson couldn't and shouldn't be voted in to the Hall of Fame because of his behaviour and generally deplorable personality. All well and good, Colin, but the mistress-murdering, paparazzi-beating Monzon never has his fighting legacy questioned over those kind of things, and nor does Ray Robinson, who beat his second wife non-stop.

He should clearly be in the honourable mentions at the very least for me. Maybe Doug just doesn't think he was all that as a fighter, but I tend to have suspicions that some of the above elements are in play to some extent in these kind of cases.

I can see Colin Hart's argument to be honest with you Chris. Tyson after all is a convicted r***ist. If I had a sister who wanted to date him I would remind her of his past, but his out of the ring activities shouldn't detract from his record and qualities as a fighter when preparing a list like Doug's.

It's an understandable stance for anyone to have, Atila. But if it's not consistent then you've got problems. The rule book has a history of getting chucked out the window when it comes to Tyson....Inevitable I guess as he trails only Ali in boxing when it comes to fame, legend and notoriety this side of the War.

The only name I can see who could be bumped for Tyson would be Calzaghe (maybe).

Julio cesar Chavez at 12 ?????...

I'd have Hearns above him....Randall slapped him twice....Which is worse than Leonard and Hagler..

Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Hill, Leonard and Shuler is better than Rosario and a Taylor gift..Both not Top 20 for me...

Chavez got a push for having the most title fight wins/bouts in history (I think).

Felt the same re chavez. As haz says I figured what had trumped him up, but quality of opposition and record against the better fighters he fought should counter that ( I guess he was cut slack for most of those being post prime and/or above best weight). Regardless of his own personal criteria, its a pretty ropey list in my view, but these things are subjective.

Interesting. Considering it's purely post-War fighters we're talking about here, I don't think Chavez is placed too badly. Sure, he's probably a couple of spots too high, but I don't think twelve is all that bad or off the money.

If you added in the pre-War guys who'd all definitely be ahead of him (for me, anyway) like Greb, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Benny Leonard, Tunney, Ross etc, added in a few more pre-War guys who'd be about the same rank as Julio and assume he falls somewhere in the middle of them all (Ryan, McLarnin, Canzoneri, Gans etc) and then write the aforementioned couple of wrongs from this list, like Mayweather and Monzon being behind him when they should be ahead, then if it were an all-time list Chavez would probably wind up roundabouts the cusp of the top twenty, maybe just outside it.....Which seems about right, for me.

A fair few things to question in this list, but I think Mayweather and Monzon's omissions along with Conn and Pep being too high are dodgier than Chavez being at twelve.

Well he hates Mayweather, so his ommission wasn't a surprise. Pacquiao, also, is worth a mention: he belongs in the same region as Floyd, wherever you place them.

That age old 606 chestnut has cost them both: their failure to fight one another back in 2011 (Chavez at least fought Whitaker).

Take your point Chris. Its the discrepancy between chavez and other modern guys who should be there, but aren't, that make it seem out of place.

It was said earlier but he seems to like his fighters old school. Must have been through gritted teeth that he put Leonard and Whittaker in!

I know. He's so stubborn that he didn't even put Toney in there. Bigot.

Up until he lost to Douglas he was 37-0, with 9 title defences.

Thing is, you look at the names of those 37 and there's a hell of a lot of guff on there

With all respect to Dougie Fischer half the names on that list aren't fit to carry Mayweather's jockstrap.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:With all respect to Dougie Fischer half the names on that list aren't fit to carry Mayweather's jockstrap.

I guess that's how it rolls in Mayweather land.

Who the hell is Sammy Angott and why is he on the list?

3fingers wrote:Who the hell is Sammy Angott and why is he on the list?

First man to beat Pep:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/queensberry-rules-boxing-blog/2013/mar/18/spoli-sports-five-boxers-winning-ugly-artform

And if you have pep and Williams flying high then you're going to have the guy who beat them.

With duran up there, kirkland Laing can count himself unlucky

Weird logic. Surely Angott deserves his props for beating those guys (along with Montgomery)?

Surprised "original thought" hasn't been on to label Angott a journeyman.

I'll have both pac and floyd in top 20, Ali top 3 for pure boxing reasons, solid resume. Won't have Griffith there and Leonard higher

KO-KING wrote:I'll have both pac and floyd in top 20, Ali top 3 for pure boxing reasons, solid resume. Won't have Griffith there and Leonard higher

Using the same criteria?

hazharrison wrote:Weird logic. Surely Angott deserves his props for beating those guys (along with Montgomery)?

Surprised "original thought" hasn't been on to label Angott a journeyman.

Well he lost to Williams as well and fought at a generally higher weight than pep. And he lost to many others. My view is the logic that's weird is the one that has angott at 17 in a post war p4p list.

Where would you have had him haz?

He's just doing a quick google search and will be back in five minutes with an article to back up an opinion he has yet to make.

There's some half decent footage of Angott fighting Robinson which I believe is only of the few fight videos of the great man in his Welterweight days. Haz as somebody who doesn't rate the spoiling tactics of Hopkins i'm surprised to see you defend Angott in any way who was the master of all spoilers and the aforementioned footage showcases that pretty well. A very awkward and rangy lightweight who it was near on impossible to look good against and yes not even Robinson looked good against him.

Just looked over at the new Azumah Nelson biography I've just got and realised - where is he on the list of sixty? Or Mike McCallum, for that matter? Kind of unforgivable when you've got Conn at #9, Angott at #18 and then the likes of Barrera, Cerdan, Calzaghe etc ahead of Zoomy and the Bodysnatcher in the honourable mentions section.

As Milky said ealier, it's a wonder guys like Leonard and Whitaker made it so far up Doug's list.

88Chris05 wrote:Just looked over at the new Azumah Nelson biography I've just got and realised - where is he on the list of sixty? Or Mike McCallum, for that matter? Kind of unforgivable when you've got Conn at #9, Angott at #18 and then the likes of Barrera, Cerdan, Calzaghe etc ahead of Zoomy and the Bodysnatcher in the honourable mentions section.

As Milky said ealier, it's a wonder guys like Leonard and Whitaker made it so far up Doug's list.

Ray Leonard made the list? Damn, I just assumed it was Benny Leonard at number 10. Well Doug needs to redo his list.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Weird logic. Surely Angott deserves his props for beating those guys (along with Montgomery)?

Surprised "original thought" hasn't been on to label Angott a journeyman.

Well he lost to Williams as well and fought at a generally higher weight than pep. And he lost to many others. My view is the logic that's weird is the one that has angott at 17 in a post war p4p list.

Where would you have had him haz?

Don't know enough about him mate - I've seen the Robinson and Zivic fights but that's about it. Fischer knows his historical onions, though.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He's just doing a quick google search and will be back in five minutes with an article to back up an opinion he has yet to make.

There's some half decent footage of Angott fighting Robinson which I believe is only of the few fight videos of the great man in his Welterweight days. Haz as somebody who doesn't rate the spoiling tactics of Hopkins i'm surprised to see you defend Angott in any way who was the master of all spoilers and the aforementioned footage showcases that pretty well. A very awkward and rangy lightweight who it was near on impossible to look good against and yes not even Robinson looked good against him.

Is that you original thought for the day?

88Chris05 wrote:Just looked over at the new Azumah Nelson biography I've just got and realised - where is he on the list of sixty? Or Mike McCallum, for that matter? Kind of unforgivable when you've got Conn at #9, Angott at #18 and then the likes of Barrera, Cerdan, Calzaghe etc ahead of Zoomy and the Bodysnatcher in the honourable mentions section.

As Milky said ealier, it's a wonder guys like Leonard and Whitaker made it so far up Doug's list.

You'd have Nelson and McCallum over Barrera? Not for me. Barrera was a better fighter than both for me. Calzaghe yes (in Nelson's case at least).

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Weird logic. Surely Angott deserves his props for beating those guys (along with Montgomery)?

Surprised "original thought" hasn't been on to label Angott a journeyman.

Well he lost to Williams as well and fought at a generally higher weight than pep. And he lost to many others. My view is the logic that's weird is the one that has angott at 17 in a post war p4p list.

Where would you have had him haz?

Don't know enough about him mate - I've seen the Robinson and Zivic fights but that's about it. Fischer knows his historical onions, though.

Here's Doug's take:

Sammy who? Angott was a former lightweight champ who won 94 bouts, faced some the best 135 pounders ever (including Ike Williams and Bob Montgomery) and two of the all-time greats, Robinson and Pep, when those two were undefeated and in their primes. Angott, who faced 10 hall of famers, was the first man to beat Pep in the pro ranks. Check him out on boxrec.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He's just doing a quick google search and will be back in five minutes with an article to back up an opinion he has yet to make.

There's some half decent footage of Angott fighting Robinson which I believe is only of the few fight videos of the great man in his Welterweight days. Haz as somebody who doesn't rate the spoiling tactics of Hopkins i'm surprised to see you defend Angott in any way who was the master of all spoilers and the aforementioned footage showcases that pretty well. A very awkward and rangy lightweight who it was near on impossible to look good against and yes not even Robinson looked good against him.

Rangy? A guy known as "the clutch"?

Think Barrera gets off too lightly for Junior Jones great fighter though he is....Yes Nelson is a glowing omission...

As for McCallum I thought he was an overachiever...Didn't rate him much as a boxer... Notice Watson doesn't either he thinks Benn and Eubank were better and he fought the worst fight of his career against Mike....Could be sour grapes..

McCallum isn't a great for me...I put him in Camacho's group...

Barrera versus McCallum in terms of greatness is not that straight forward. My initial reaction was to pick Barrera over McCallum as he was more talented but in terms of wins it's closer.

The Morsles trilogy trumps anything McCallum has in terms of stand out wins against a top prime fighter. McCallum was in with more high level opponents though.

Guess you can look it at it two ways re jones Barrera. Should a great be losing twice to jones? Or do we credit him for using it to change his style and come back a better fighter? Bit of both probably.

I'm a bit biased because nelson was one of my favourite fighters, but while it sometimes took him two bites of the cherry to demonstrate his superiority, he got the best of his opponents in the end. After the crude, green late replacement that gave Sanchez hell he had 1 defeat in 12 years... And that a size and probably a class too far against sweet p. I think you have a guy who'd make most top 60 post war fighters. And while Barrera might have a generally higher class of opponent on his cv, he lost to a few of them. Nelson above Barrera for me.

Strongback wrote:Barrera versus McCallum in terms of greatness is not that straight forward.  My initial reaction was to pick Barrera over McCallum as he was more talented but in terms of wins it's closer.

The Morsles trilogy trumps anything McCallum has in terms of stand out wins against a top prime fighter. McCallum was in with more high level opponents though.

Barrera also topped an unbeaten Hamed before embarking on a solid featherweight reign. I also thought he was the victim of a terrible injustice against Marquez (and proved he was the better man regardless).

The McKinney win was a wonderful performance. The Morales series tips it to Barrera for me.

Injustice against Marquez, Haz? Do you mean Morales (first fight)? Or are you talking about the blatant foul after the knockdown?

I think on reflection Berrera-McCallum is close enough to be argued either way, I'll concede that. But I'd stick with Nelson being ahead of Marco. Barrera probably a bit more technically gifted than Zoomy but the defeats to Jones (ok, he was in command in the first one before walking on to a Hail Mary punch, but he got outscored over twelve in a return) and Pacquiao, in or around his prime years, leave a slight sour taste. Nelson may have been a little outclassed against a prime Whitaker, but you can't fault him for effort. On the other hand, as amazing as Pacquiao was in that first Barrera fight, Marco did seem to mentally check out of the fight and just look to survive from the mid-rounds onwards.

Gomez in his back yard, an undefeated Fenech in his backyard in one of the best wins / performances by absolutely anyone in the nineties....Nelson's record is pretty stacked. Barrera, due to his status as a headliner (Nelson was often on the undercards of King's stacked shows), his nationality and his rivalry with Morales got more fanfare and attention than Nelson but I'd have to say the Ghanaian had the better career overall.

Close but I'd give it to Nelson.