My Top 50 boxers of all time list

First topic message reminder :

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. Benny Leonard
8. Willie Pep
9. Tommy Hearns
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Joe Louis
13. Sam Langford
14. Gene Tunney
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Eder Jofre
17. Stanley Ketchel
18. Jack Johnson
19. Joe Gans
20. Bob Fitzsimmons
21. Roberto Duran
22. Bernard Hopkins
23. Marvin Hagler
24. Jimmy Wilde
25. Manny Pacquiao
26. Ricardo Lopez
27. Archie Moore
28. Barney Ross
29. Tony Canzoneri
30. Oscar De La Hoya
31. Roy Jones Junior
33. Alexis Arguello
33. Aaron Pryor
34. Mickey Walker
35. Sandy Saddler
36. Jake LaMotta
37. Evander Holyfield
38. Carlos Monzon
39. Larry Holmes
40. George Foreman
41. Julio Cesar Chavez
42. Charley Burley
43. Jack Dempsey
44. Michael Spinks
45. Ted Lewis
46. Joe Frazier
47. Salvador Sanchez
48. Erik Morales
49. Don Curry
50. Juan Manuel Marquez

Feel free to criticise my list. Add who you want on the list and who you dont. If im convinced I might change the list. You can also produce your own top 50 list.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Understood, Scott. In the case of Jofre, if I can make the comparison with Greb and Charles again, it would be something like 60-40 ability/achievements (not unlike Robinson), whereas with the other two it would perhaps the same but the other way around. Does that make sense?

Captain/Scott: just reading back over some of your comments, and have to say, it is something I always struggle with as well. Ranking boxers like this is so subjective and especially resisting the temptation to rank them in theoretical "head 2 head" matches.

I know I rattle on about him way too much, but I always think Ricardo Lopez is criminally overlooked in all time great lists due to his weight class and lack of "name" opposition. If we are using a fighters CV as the dominant criteria then he will naturally suffer against other fighters who have star names, but if we base it more on skills, domination of division/s, longevity, titles, unbeaten records etc etc then he becomes an absolute shoe in for top twenty in my opinion. I find it a shame that someone with such overwhelming skills is quite often a sidenote in these lists due to the fact he is small!

I always find these lists make me feel more confused than ever!

Lopez is criminally overlooked...but how many from jr feather down are given credit??????

Gomez, Olivares, Pintor are all forgotten aren't they??

Lopez is clearly top 50 for me, Tino. I mentioned earlier that I find precise placement below 20, and certainly 30, to be particularly difficult, but I'm sure that Lopez belongs in the top 50, in the same way as Khaosai Galaxy, as the single dominant presence in the history of his division. It's hard to know how to compare the two of them with other greats, since their divisions are so young, but as I said, Lopez and Galaxy could do no more than take their competition apart, which they did with glee. I don't think that there was much suggestion that they had anyone of significance missing from their record, anyway. My gut feeling has Galaxy around 45 and Lopez five or six spots higher, but it would take me ages to sit down and really apply some concerted logic to it all. One day, perhaps....

Towzer..with all due respect you just said Curry quit like a dog when the Doctor stopped it..

Get your own house in order...
............................
Curry quit, he shook his head in the corner and quit, he never had heart imo. Also you say Hagler never lost to Leonard, yeah he did, i thought Starling beat Curry in the 2nd fight but he lost!

Gomez would be a top 50 man p for p, no question for me. Beyond doubt the best at 122. Olivares would figure a bit lower, although he's a top 6 or 7 bantam in my book. Pintor would be much the weakest of the three, although a very useful champ, obviously. However, I couldn't swear that I'd put Pintor inside my top 80, say. I think people do themselves out of some great fights and fighters if they unilaterally ignore everyone below featherweight, as I've seen some people suggest on these boards. Great shame, really.

He shook his head going back to the corner and the Doctor stopped it because of the cut!!!

asked later he said he was shaking his head.....with frustration because he'd got cut...

Stop lying......

As for Marlon...I thought Mallory climbed Everest before he died!! but who the hell cares

Good to know that Calzaghe is the greatest british fighter of all time because he never lost, far greater than Hopkins even

Silly billy aren't you!!

Seems to be the logic your using Truss or have I misread your ramblings?

Truss, read the PM I have sent you mate.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Gomez would be a top 50 man p for p, no question for me. Beyond doubt the best at 122. Olivares would figure a bit lower, although he's a top 6 or 7 bantam in my book. Pintor would be much the weakest of the three, although a very useful champ, obviously. However, I couldn't swear that I'd put Pintor inside my top 80, say. I think people do themselves out of some great fights and fighters if they unilaterally ignore everyone below featherweight, as I've seen some people suggest on these boards. Great shame, really.

Great shame indeed. With the proliferation of videos on YouTube nowadays, and masses of articles on the internet, there is ample opportunity to see guys like Lopez and others in action.

Truss, beating P4Pers has to be taken in context. Supposing (for sake of argument) Floyd went and lost to Cleverly-it'd hardly count for much for Cleverly because of the size. For that reason Marquez needs an asterisk next to it. The other three wins are also open to criticism.

Think the issue with the guys below featherweight is that the average person can't relate to fighters so much smaller than themselves

Curry quit, Honeyghan, Carpenter, the beeb, itv, all said he quit which is obviously what he did, and was absolutely pummled by a slugger.

There is a difference between owning someone and destroying them Ghosty..So i'm going to leave you with just a slapping...

I want you to be able to look into your Wife's eyes and still feel like a Man in the morning..

Hit and running like a true American, claiming victory despite being decisively beaten

Fair play though mate your more of a challenge than others

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think the issue with the guys below featherweight is that the average person can't relate to fighters so much smaller than themselves

Again, if this true then what an incredible shame. As boxing fans we should be equally able to appreciate the skills of a 105lb Mexican as much as a 175lb American. I think the vast majority of people on here would consider themselves open minded enough to look at someone below Featherweight and judge them in context, but guys like Lopez, Galaxy and their ilk still get precious little coverage on here.

I want you to be able to look into your Wife's eyes and still feel like a Man in the morning..
............................
Why do you always go off topic lol? we hear about your wife's pregnancy, hormones, your bar room brawls, talking about other people's wifes, etc. All points to you living on your own in a bedsit

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is a difference between owning someone and destroying them Ghosty..So i'm going to leave you with just a slapping...

I want you to be able to look into your Wife's eyes and still feel like a Man in the morning..

I'm sure you always feel like a man, eh Truss..?

Even down at the blue oyster...........

8)

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Castillo in many peoples eyes beat Mayweather first time around but didn't come close in the rematch, why not?

Calling Castillo and Coralles future hall of famers is going a bit too far, they were both very good but fell short of the highest level

Buchanan, Cuevas, Palomino and Leonard are already hall of famers and all beaten by Duran

Why because you buttlick the old timers all the time and have the mentality that the modern era cant have any greats?

Torn rotator cuff and didn't quit like a dog like Duran.

Accuse me of buttlicking old timers when i'm debating Duran

Putting two and two together means I get four

I was just generalizing that you tend to buttlick the old timers and I never said Duran was a old timer so it's not my fault you misunderstood, in future I will use smaller words then you might understand better ghosty.

You came up with 5 when you put two and two together.

BALTIMORA wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Duran beat Leonard fair and square, the more you protest against that the more bitter you look, you can't handle the fact that a panamanian beat the top man of American boxing

Can always tell when you've been gotten the better of you start to get aggressive

Hatton wasn't all that and never will be, De La Hoya was past his best and whether the weight suited him or not doesn't change that fact. Mosley had scored a good win over Margarito but lets not make out he was anywhere near his best and Marquez will never be more than a lightweight.

Hatton was unbeaten and a great at 140, De La Hoya, Mosley and Marquez are greats as well, stop disrespecting the modern era.

Good wins, but not immune to criticism.

Hatton was fighting at a weight not his best-chosen by Mayweather for this very reason.

Oscar, while more suited to the weight, had not been as active and was past his best, having been beaten already four (some may say five) times already.

Mosley was a knackered has-been who'd been made to look somewhat shot against Mayorga before beating Margarito-who in turn could be claimed to have had his mind elsewhere when beaten by SSM.

Marquez-a modern great (Towzer may not agree...), sure, but not at 144, not by a long way.

The fact you brought up some tosh about the BNP shows me how desperate you're getting...

It's well known Ricky Hatton felt he wasn't ready for Floyd Mayweather when Floyd Mayweather fought at the weight. Also Floyd Mayweather came down from 154 to 147 and Hatton moved up one so it was fair. Floyd Mayweather destroyed one of the best light welterweights of all time.

3 of De La Hoya's 4 losses at the time was debatable and De La Hoya was winning on one of the judges scorecard before the Hopkins knockout. Floyd Mayweather was a clear winner and outclassed a ATG in De La Hoya at his own weight.

Mosley was the welterweight champion coming off one of his best ever wins and Floyd Mayweather destroyed him unlike that ducker Cotto just barely beat Mosley.

Marquez and Pacquiao are the same size and Floyd Mayweather made a all time great Marquez look like a novice.

The fact that you accused me of being a WUM and sucking up to the likes of young towzer shows desperation on your part.

Young_Towzer wrote:Mr delusional supports the BNP says all you need to know about the guy.
.......................
Reported that
But you follow a guy, well your obsessed with a guy who calls Manny vile racist names ? haha, never been racist in me life, i would shake any BNP hand if they opposed the weirdos who burn poppys, etc, don't support them though i wouldn't support any narrow minded idiot who judges someone by what colour they are, not for me that pal. I've boxed with lads of Asian, African origin and been like family to me, nice try however at another WUM comment, i don't care if your yellow, black, purple, orange or gold, all the same to me, like i say though, reported you, you've had more bans than roy keane so should look at it.

Im glad you have as I quoted your comment where you calling me obsessed and also bias on another comment. I have said nothing wrong more so than you. So the mods and admins can clearly see for themselves. Your not in any position to preach to me about bans when you got banned for calling a admin a pr!ck on here. Your basing the "more ban" theory on something you heard from coxy.

Young_Towzer wrote:The fact you brought up some tosh about the BNP shows me how desperate you're getting...
.....................................
how can you take seriously someone so bias as he is towards Mayweather? just saying!

No one ever took you seriously on the bbc 606 or on here, especially with some of the ridiculous things you used to come out with such as Cotto would beat Floyd Mayweather etc.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Becoming a habit this owning business PBF....

According to ghosty we shouldn't count the fight at 154 with Hearns because he had no business there...but we should count his wins against Barkley at 160, Moore at 154...and his performance v Hagler at 160

Selective reasoning again on your part, at no point have I said we shouldn't count the Hearns fight but taking into account the vast size difference it plays down the significance of the loss, were he knocked out in two rounds at lightweight then you may have a point but he wasn't

Ahh the he was the smaller man excuse is just pathetic, it doesn't matter what weight the fight would be held Hearns would always destroy Duran.

BALTIMORA wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Becoming a habit this owning business PBF....

According to ghosty we shouldn't count the fight at 154 with Hearns because he had no business there...but we should count his wins against Barkley at 160, Moore at 154...and his performance v Hagler at 160

Truss I really find it hard to believe you can't see why a win over a bigger guy means more than a loss to one. Just the simple principle of it. I'm not totally dismissing the losses, but the size has to be taken into account.

Why because it suits your theory? If Duran was able to go the distance at 160 with Hagler and beat Barkley it makes your point invalid. Duran should not be rated higher than Leonard or Hearns simple as.

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Becoming a habit this owning business PBF....

According to ghosty we shouldn't count the fight at 154 with Hearns because he had no business there...but we should count his wins against Barkley at 160, Moore at 154...and his performance v Hagler at 160

Selective reasoning again on your part, at no point have I said we shouldn't count the Hearns fight but taking into account the vast size difference it plays down the significance of the loss, were he knocked out in two rounds at lightweight then you may have a point but he wasn't

Ahh the he was the smaller man excuse is just pathetic, it doesn't matter what weight the fight would be held Hearns would always destroy Duran.

Well for Hearns to make Durans natural Lightweight he would probably have had to sacrifice an arm or a leg so I doubt it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hit and running like a true American, claiming victory despite being decisively beaten

Fair play though mate your more of a challenge than others

I remember you claiming you "owned" D4 but not realising how he was making you eat from the palm of his hand. Same situation here you got beat badly and I didn't find you challenging at all.

BALTIMORA wrote:Truss, beating P4Pers has to be taken in context. Supposing (for sake of argument) Floyd went and lost to Cleverly-it'd hardly count for much for Cleverly because of the size. For that reason Marquez needs an asterisk next to it. The other three wins are also open to criticism.

Marquez and Pacquiao are the same size and Marquez came up from 135 to 142 hardly the same thing isit? Stupid comparison again.

You should take a long, hard look in the mirror before you accuse other people of saying or doing stupid things. Everyone at the time thought it was a mismatch, everyone still thinks that.

BALTIMORA wrote:You should take a long, hard look in the mirror before you accuse other people of saying or doing stupid things. Everyone at the time thought it was a mismatch, everyone still thinks that.

What was a mismatch?

Mayweather vs Marquez. The weight made a huge difference, as you're well aware.

BALTIMORA wrote:Mayweather vs Marquez. The weight made a huge difference, as you're well aware.

What can I say Floyd Mayweather is just too good. Not really the weight had no effect, skill won the fight.

The genius of PBF wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Mayweather vs Marquez. The weight made a huge difference, as you're well aware.

What can I say Floyd Mayweather is just too good. Not really the weight had no effect, skill won the fight.

The same way Pacquiao was just too good for Oscar? Carry on with the wind-up. I'm not sure what you think you gain from it.

BALTIMORA wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Mayweather vs Marquez. The weight made a huge difference, as you're well aware.

What can I say Floyd Mayweather is just too good. Not really the weight had no effect, skill won the fight.

The same way Pacquiao was just too good for Oscar? Carry on with the wind-up. I'm not sure what you think you gain from it.

Not a wind up if you believe it BALTIMORA. Also De La Hoya was shot and dehaydrated, Marquez was healthy at the weight. Another bad comparison Balti.

That's like saying god or the tooth fairy exist as long as you believe in them. Hardly a strong argument. The same people who know Oscar was shot also know and state that Marquez was ineffective at welterweight, regardless of the skill of his opponent. This argue has been had before. Unless you have something of some intelligence to add, I'm done here for now.

BALTIMORA wrote:That's like saying god or the tooth fairy exist as long as you believe in them. Hardly a strong argument. The same people who know Oscar was shot also know and state that Marquez was ineffective at welterweight, regardless of the skill of his opponent. This argue has been had before. Unless you have something of some intelligence to add, I'm done here for now.

God does exist though

Marquez was ineffective at 144 because of Floyd Mayweather's skill and talent not down to weight. Marquez would destroy Cotto at 147 and beat some of the contenders at 147 like Berto.

Do you not get bored of talking tripe, PBF? I'm losing the will to live.

I thought we weren't going to stand for wums on this forum?

Time for a warning, give it a week before the pathetic wum is banned again.

coxy0001 wrote:I thought we weren't going to stand for wums on this forum?

Time for a warning, give it a week before the pathetic wum is banned again.

What you still doing on here then?

Sod off. You're a disgrace to this place to be honest, and not many will disagree with me. "Marquez beats Cotto @ 147". you're a bit pathetic sunshine.

Agree there Coxy, that is the worst quote I have seen since "Hatton is too big for Pacquaio".

If only there was some way on here or generally in life to ignore the comments of people who you think talk nonsense. Damn this lack of personal choice and self discipline that blights us.

If you were a challenge PBF I wouldn't be able to have you tripping over yourself here there and everywhere would I? Truss is slightly different as I take him with good humour as unlike you his words are his own, not plagarised from elsewhere, lets be brutally honest for a second you didn't have a clue who Marcel was before I mentioned him did you?

As for Hearns beating Duran at any weight, yes any weight he could make but not every weight that Duran could make, Hearns would have near killed himself to get down to 135lbs and would be the equivalent of the walking dead.

Duran beating Leonard at Welterweight is in my opinion among the top 5 wins of all time and no amount of back tracking is going to change that, you constantly mention Leonard fighting the wrong fight but why was that? It was because Duran got into his head and made him fight that way, mental strength is a big part of boxing and Leonard showed a lot of weakness in being dragged into a brawl with someone like Duran. We could say for anyone that they fought the wrong fight but it doesn't prove anything

Hatton is a borderling top ten Light Welterweight purely because it's a division thats primarily been used as a stepping stone between lightweight and welterweight, based on ability Hatton would be nowhere near a top ten spot

rowley wrote:If only there was some way on here or generally in life to ignore the comments of people who you think talk nonsense. Damn this lack of personal choice and self discipline that blights us.

The foe function is pointless as the forum will be full of random messages pointing at a message you can't see. Doesn't help when the forum disolves into a wummy mess.

Other option would be to keep the wum on a leash or just get rid of him. Again.

I'll second that the for function is pointless. I tried that with D4, and just ended up reading threads which looked like people were talking to voices in their heads.

To visit the oft discussed topic of Duran's standing for me I actually agree that he is ranked a little high on many occasions but if there are times I do not consider him a top ten guy for me he is certainly in the top 15. To be honest he earned this once he beat a top five welter in his pomp because as Ghosty says this is one of the best wins ever. The comment about it being controversial are just plain wrong, close is not the same as controversial. The other point I would pick up on is the DeJesus fight. Yes he lost but he went 2-1 in the series so proved himself the better man. Ross lost to McLarnin and Ali lost to Frazier however as they both won the other two do not hold those losses against them guys so would seem unfair to hold Duran to a higher standard.

Post Leonard I see his career as an ageing guy operating outside his optimum weight who's form was a little patchy, however at middle the same could be said of Robinson but his body of work at his best is sufficient to not put too much stock in this so again will not hold Duran up to a different standard. His reign at lightweight coupled with a truly terrific win over Leonard seal his greatness for me and his form after neither add or detract to his leagcy IMO.

He gets the benefit of greater longevity by fighting at light middleweight and middleweight where he did score some decent wins but do should we really hold it against him that he almost always fought the best?

He didn't have to rematch Leonard straight away nor did he have to chase Hearns as soon as he beat Moore but it's a measure of the man that he wasn't happy just being a footnote in history but always wanted to fight the best

Lightweight: Dejesus and Buchanan
Welterweight: Leonard and Palomino
Light Middleweight: Hearns and Benitez
Middleweight: Hagler

Yes he was 5:5 in those fights but who can really claim to have fought that much quality spread over 5 different weight classes, his career is bookended with wins over Marcel and Castro some 30 years apart and 7/8 divisions apart, now that is some serious longevity.

Slight amendment to that Ghosty, in that he blatantly ducked McCallum at 154, although there wouldn't have been much money in it and he had set his sights on Hagler at that stage, I guess.