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.

I'm surprised that you've not put Mike Spinks in your top twenty, Truss, as I know you're a big fan of his.

I think you have a fair few of the same names that I would, though obviously not in the same order at all. Personally, I think Ross, Walker, Tunney, Moore, Gans and Walcott are all top twenty men, with Louis borderline, but that's just me.

Can't accept Mayweather as a top twenty man unless he fights and beats Pacquiao, sorry. Until then, his record just doesn't compare with the likes of Ross or Saddler, who only just scrape in to the top twenty in my estimations.

You can't actually believe that can you?

Hatton at WW where he'd previously needed a gift off the average Collazo.

Marquez at 147, cheating Marquez who'd weighed in at 144. Mosley - old but a reasonable win. ODLH - good win.

LW champ of the world. The man, the only man and the best 1972-1979. When old, steps up, ignoring LWW and beats Leonard fair and square. Loses to Benitez, Laing, Sims, whilst distinctly on the slide. In which case, I'll hold Berbick and Holmes against Ali. He beat Barkley at MW - remembering that he's a LW here - and he beat the guy that was being outboxed before a lucky shot - and then outboxed Hearns in the rematch.

The only fighter you've named who makes this even a discussion is ODLH - and he was old, had retired, coming of a long spell of inactivity to KO the very limited Mayorga. And even then, Floyd managed a split.

If you're doing it on records - then Manny should take Floyd's place as Manny's record is superior.

But lets face it, you're ranking it to be controversial and because Floyd has an "0" and is American.

Too difficult to put numbers 21-50 in some sort of order, although I think that I know the names of the fighters that I would like there. My top 6 is fairly well set for the moment, but after that things become a bit more fluid.

For those who are interested, here is my current top 20, EXCLUDING active fighters, who need time to have their full CV appraised after they retire.

1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) Jofre) 4) Ali 5) Greb 6) Charles 7) Langford 8) Fitzsimmons 9) Benny Leonard 10=) Pep 10=) Saddler 12) Duran13) Ray Leonard 14) Tunney 15) Monzon 16) Ross 17) Whitaker 18) Arguello 19) Moore 20) Chavez.

Should mention that McLarnin, Michael Spinks, Gans, Walker and Canzoneri quite often get into my top 20 as well, just not today!

Duran lost to bigger men..but let's remember Floyd has made a career out of fighting them too..

Unbeaten as well.....Dejesus was bigger though was he...

Feel free to disagree but no one in my top 13 gets battered like Duran did...

You might as well put Apollo in if you've got Floyd in your top ten Truss.

Pacquaio has a more depth resume that's a fact. Don't let the zero fool ya

What do you consider Jofre's best wins Captain? They don't look as deep as some of those below him.

You're a wumming t*t so your opinion doesn't count.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Feel free to disagree but no one in my top 13 gets battered like Duran did...

They did, now and then. Pep was absolutely mauled by Saddler a couple of times. Greb was knocked out with a single punch by Chip, although it was early on in his career. You've argued for Mike Spinks as a top ten all timer in the past, and he was demolished by Tyson.

Not sure why you think Duran is the only all-time great who suffered a crushing defeat. He simply wasn't, and he won't be the last.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're a wumming t*t so your opinion doesn't count.

Watch ya mouth in future

Oh come on....Hearns - Duran was humiliating..

do me a favor...you look silly comparing Pep-Saddler to it..

Would have thought that you would have realised now that Duran had no business fighting at Light Middleweight let alone against arguably the best fighter in the divisions history, was giving up far too much physically to use it against him.

Mayweather has no business going from 130-154 then hey....

He's unbeaten....

Well don't mention the Barkley win then dumbass or the Hagler fight as part of his LEGACY if you want me to leave Hearns out at a LESSER weight!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oh come on....Hearns - Duran was humiliating..

do me a favor...you look silly comparing Pep-Saddler to it..

That's strange, I don't feel silly. Have you watched the first Pep-Saddler bout? Will 'O the Wisp got the tanning of a lifetime, absolutely brutalized by Saddler. The fact that it went a couple of rounds longer than Duran-Hearns did has little or no relevance. And what about the Spinks point? You've argued that he's a top ten man of all time and the fighter of the eighties in the past, can't have it both ways when he was dismissed by Tyson in a similar manner to Duran against Hearns, and was facing less disadvantages in my book.

Not too bright are you Truss

Duran didn't start life as a lightweight did he, started considerably lower as i'm sure you're well aware. Stepping up to face Leonard, Palomino, Cuevas, Hearns and Hagler is far different to fighting Baldomir, Judah, Hatton, Marquez and De La Hoya. It's not a case of ignoring the Hearns loss but understanding why it happened so conclusively

Lot's of fighters start lower until they reach an age of maturation...Ali was a light heavy when he started as was Holyfield....

Ali was a natural heavyweight when he matured..

So I'm plenty bright enough thankyou..

I'm sick of people like you using Barkley and Hagler as a way of showing how great Duran is...but then dismissing Hearns at 154 because he had no right fighting there...


It wasn't the weight that beat Duran...The jab and his inability to get inside...

Complete humiliation....Run along....

Scott, I'd probably pick Eloy Sanchez, Medel (x2), Caldwell and Caraballo as his best victims at bantam, while Legra and (an ageing) Saldivar are, of course, the pick at featherweight.

It was his absolute domination, really. A bantamweight version of Monzon, but with more dimensions to his game. And, of course, with that scarcely believable comeback to add to the mix. I've always felt that the two losses to Harada were forgivable - the first, in any case, was a bit of a home-town decision, but Jofre was having to snip off limbs to make 118 by then, he had severe managerial problems, he was in the other fellow's back yard, and Harada is a fringe all-time top ten bantam himself. However, no-one ever ruled 118 with such an iron fist as the Golden Bantam - when added to the extraordinary second act of his career, I'm content with Jofre's exalted position.

Difference is Truss that Duran fought quality in the form of Kobayashi and Marcel in the lower weights, he reached his physical peak at Lightweight and was in no shape or form a Welterweight or above

Nothing to do with reach and height advantage which enabled Hearns to utitlise his jab was it?

Duran's reign was full of non entities Buchanan and Dejesus aside...

Okay we'll forget everything from 154 upwards....

A Calzaghe like reign with a controversial win over leonard that was followed by a quit like a dog performance....

No Hagler, Barkley, Moore, Hearns, benitez etc....

No top 10 place with that resume for me....

Have it your way...

Lost to Dejesus.....Mayweather has never lost...but we'll count "His" exploits at 147-154 though because I believe he has a right fighting there..

Duran is one of the most overrated fighters there is...had the worst record out of fab 4, lost to all 3 yet gets rated higher than them!!!

Don't think anyone is saying we should ignore the loss to Hearns at 154 lb, Truss. The point is, it's simply not as damaging a defeat in terms of Duran's legacy as you claim it is.

You don't rate his Lightweight reign beause of these so-called 'non-entities?' Please Trussman, find me someone who has defended a lineal title twelve times and not faced a non-entity somewhere along the line. There's more than enough quality there in the shape of De Jesus, Buchanan, Ishimatsu and Fernandez, especially if you're going to fawn over Mayweather's victories against Gatti, Corrales, Castillo and Hernandez, who do not represent a better quality collectively.

To be honest, calling the win over Leonard "controversial" is plain pathetic and a desperate attempt at trying to rewrite history to suit your argument. Leonard not fighting the way you wish he'd fought does not make the result controversial, not at all. I see you're not so quick to point out how unconvincing and debatable Mayweather's "win" over Castillo first time out was though, eh? Duran beat Leonard at least as comfortably as Mayweather beat De la Hoya, too, and there's no doubting which one was the greater and more significant triumph.

And do get back to me over the Mike Spinks point when you can, please. Would like to know why it's one rule for a fighter you like and another for one which you don't.

Ghosty is saying it...

Bonafide great PBF in fairness..but no top 10er loses like that or quits like a dog for me..

Floyd should be above him...

my opinion.............it won't change.

Had this argument with you on old 606 too many times so not bothered retreading old ground at the moment. I'm very interested in your answer to Chris's more than valid question about Spinks? You rate him as an all time great and he was rolled like a drunk just as bad if not worse than Duran was.. reasoning?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Scott, I'd probably pick Eloy Sanchez, Medel (x2), Caldwell and Caraballo as his best victims at bantam, while Legra and (an ageing) Saldivar are, of course, the pick at featherweight.

It was his absolute domination, really. A bantamweight version of Monzon, but with more dimensions to his game. And, of course, with that scarcely believable comeback to add to the mix. I've always felt that the two losses to Harada were forgivable - the first, in any case, was a bit of a home-town decision, but Jofre was having to snip off limbs to make 118 by then, he had severe managerial problems, he was in the other fellow's back yard, and Harada is a fringe all-time top ten bantam himself. However, no-one ever ruled 118 with such an iron fist as the Golden Bantam - when added to the extraordinary second act of his career, I'm content with Jofre's exalted position.

I understand his dominance and the great comeback, but the factor which splits guys at the top end of the P4P list is usually opposition. Perhaps I just don't have enough background of his opponents, but wouldn't consider them legends. Certainly not up with that of Grebs or Charles'. I see the same thing with Wilde, often in or around top 10 lists, but his opposition never looks as good as the 10 guys below him. You know more about him than me no doubt, just seems a bit high.

Sometimes though, Scott, sheer ability and dominance are sufficient, wouldn't you say ?

If we consider George Foreman on the basis of record - especially as champion - he probably doesn't dent the top ten heavies, but would anybody, in reality, deny him a place among the elite ?

Who has Mayweather ever faced who comes remotely close to Hearns, Leonard, Hagler or even Benitez, Palomino, Cuevas, Dejesus or Buchanan for that matter?

At no point have I said ignore the Hearns loss but have rather said it was not a fight fought on a level playing field, a career lightweight against a big punching huge Welterweight at 154lbs, for that simple reason the loss is no big deal.

HumanWindmill wrote:Sometimes though, Scott, sheer ability and dominance are sufficient, wouldn't you say ?

If we consider George Foreman on the basis of record - especially as champion - he probably doesn't dent the top ten heavies, but would anybody, in reality, deny him a place among the elite ?

If you are debating the best, of course. But I don't think that's what people do in general, they normally do it on resumé. Just questioning whether it's consistent.

Is it fair for example to punish a Heavyweight that can't move divisions for having no one great to beat if they are dominant over everyone they can face? At the same time it isn't fair to give them credit for something they haven't done because you believe they could have done it.

It's tricky, I'm just pointing out that I think a couple of fighters get ranked highly based on dominance and perceived ability, while others perhaps don't because they didn't face enough great opponents etc.

His opponents weren't legends, that's true (apart from maybe Saldivar). The bantamweight division in Jofre's time was very decent, but probably not as good as it was in the 70s. Rather like a Monzon or a Wilde or perhaps even a Pep, say, the only thing that you can then do as a fighter is to destroy whatever comes at you in as convincing a fashion as possible. This, I feel, Jofre did, and saving only Harada, he retired at 40 with a perfect record. I entirely accept your point about opposition - however, if we were to be slavish in our adherence to opposition as the sole criterion for pound for pound ranking, then Charles or Greb would be top, and Robinson might only just make the top 5. Absolute dominance of your contemporaries must play a part too, I should say; in this regard, Jofre had few peers.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who has Mayweather ever faced who comes remotely close to Hearns, Leonard, Hagler or even Benitez, Palomino, Cuevas, Dejesus or Buchanan for that matter?

At no point have I said ignore the Hearns loss but have rather said it was not a fight fought on a level playing field, a career lightweight against a big punching huge Welterweight at 154lbs, for that simple reason the loss is no big deal.

He faced Hearns got battered, got beat by Hagler who showed him too much respect and let him survive. Got lucky in the 1st fight against Leonard who put things right in the 2nd fight and showed the gulf in class. So your using that he faced them as a way of being better than Floyd Mayweather. Lets put Norton as number one heavy as he faced Ali, Holmes and Foreman by your logic.

Prime Corrales and Castillo, unbeaten Hatton...De La Hoya, Mosley and Marquez all 6 future hall of famers.

Why are people saying Duran got lucky first time out against Leonard? Its not true in the slightest, and I find it really irritating that people are trying to take that (considerable) achievement away from him.

If Leonard had done this that and the other is a nothing argument. They fought, Duran won.

captain carrantuohil wrote:His opponents weren't legends, that's true (apart from maybe Saldivar). The bantamweight division in Jofre's time was very decent, but probably not as good as it was in the 70s. Rather like a Monzon or a Wilde or perhaps even a Pep, say, the only thing that you can then do as a fighter is to destroy whatever comes at you in as convincing a fashion as possible. This, I feel, Jofre did, and saving only Harada, he retired at 40 with a perfect record. I entirely accept your point about opposition - however, if we were to be slavish in our adherence to opposition as the sole criterion for pound for pound ranking, then Charles or Greb would be top, and Robinson might only just make the top 5. Absolute dominance of your contemporaries must play a part too, I should say; in this regard, Jofre had few peers.

As an example, Roy Jones wasn't around in the greatest Light Heavyweight era. But he was completely dominant over everyone he faced, and beat a number of decent champions. I think you can find people who would be happy for someone to rank Jofre top 10 of all time, but wouldn't even consider Jones a top 10 Light Heavyweight due to a lack of opposition.

As always I guess it lies in the balance you strike between ability, dominance, achievements and opposition.

joeyjojo618 wrote:Why are people saying Duran got lucky first time out against Leonard? Its not true in the slightest, and I find it really irritating that people are trying to take that (considerable) achievement away from him.

If Leonard had done this that and the other is a nothing argument. They fought, Duran won.

What happened in the rematch? Why couldn't Duran pull it off again?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Why are people saying Duran got lucky first time out against Leonard? Its not true in the slightest, and I find it really irritating that people are trying to take that (considerable) achievement away from him.

If Leonard had done this that and the other is a nothing argument. They fought, Duran won.

One of the greatest wins of all time, without doubt.

Scottrf wrote:

joeyjojo618 wrote:Why are people saying Duran got lucky first time out against Leonard? Its not true in the slightest, and I find it really irritating that people are trying to take that (considerable) achievement away from him.

If Leonard had done this that and the other is a nothing argument. They fought, Duran won.

One of the greatest wins of all time, without doubt.

Leonard beating Duran...Yeah I know

Hearns destroying Duran was a better win in my opinion

Im not saying Duran had the beating of him day in, day out PBF. He lost the rematch fair and square. But that doesnt take anything away from his first win, it was exceptional.

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

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.

The modern era has it's greats but Castillo and Coralles aren't even at Marcels level who people forget was a very very good featherweight, retired after comfortably beating the great Alexis Arguello

Can we use stomach cramps as an excuse for Duran losing to Leonard then PBF?

And since when were the fab four old timers?

People should also remember leonard 1 was a controversial decision....

The other two weren't!!

Accept what you say again, Scott. For what it's worth, I make Jones number 6 of all time at 175, a division where the competition is ridiculously hot. When added to his brief, but impressive career at 160 and slightly longer, but arguably even more impressive career at 168, that would make for a pretty cast-iron case for a high p for p ranking for Roy but for two factors: 1) we can't ignore entirely the Tarver and Johnson losses (although we can most of the others) and 2) I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the PED question.

Bantamweight does not have the depth of light-heavy, but I think you'll find that virtually everyone, with the odd exception, is happy to acknowledge Jofre as tops of all time in that division. Add that to the Brazilian's preposterous featherweight comeback and you have a guy who is almost sui generis.

Duran deservedly got the nod in a close fight, hardly ever heard it spoken of as being a bad decision Truss, it was a great win and you know it

Leonard-Duran I wasn't remotely controversial, Truss, and I can't even remember Leonard questioning the result excessively. It was close, but that doesn't equal controversial, and a look at Leonard's face (as opposed to his raised arms) after the Brawl in Montreal confirms the suspicion that he knew that he'd been outthought and outfought.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Accept what you say again, Scott. For what it's worth, I make Jones number 6 of all time at 175, a division where the competition is ridiculously hot. When added to his brief, but impressive career at 160 and slightly longer, but arguably even more impressive career at 168, that would make for a pretty cast-iron case for a high p for p ranking for Roy but for two factors: 1) we can't ignore entirely the Tarver and Johnson losses (although we can most of the others) and 2) I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the PED question.

Bantamweight does not have the depth of light-heavy, but I think you'll find that virtually everyone, with the odd exception, is happy to acknowledge Jofre as tops of all time in that division. Add that to the Brazilian's preposterous featherweight comeback and you have a guy who is almost sui generis.

Fair enough. Wasn't saying you in particular were inconsistent, just trying to work out if there was anything I've missed with him, and to what extent you were basing it on achievement, what amount on ability.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People should also remember leonard 1 was a controversial decision....

No it wasn't, simple as that. There's a difference between a close fight and a controversial decision. It was a close fight, but Duran won deservedly. Leonard accepts that he lost the fight, because he did. I've not seen many, if any at all, really argue that Leonard was the better man in Montreal.

Holyfield-Lewis I was a controversial decision. Hearns-Leonard II was a controversial decision. Duran-Leonard I was not. Besides, since when did a win not matter just because one person deems it "controversial?"

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The modern era has it's greats but Castillo and Coralles aren't even at Marcels level who people forget was a very very good featherweight, retired after comfortably beating the great Alexis Arguello

Can we use stomach cramps as an excuse for Duran losing to Leonard then PBF?

He has one win over Arguello and that makes him better than Castillo and Corrales...It's you who forgets how good Corrales and Castillo was and also it was a young Arguello he beat.

Duran lost, Floyd Mayweather did not and will not get beat...Duran quit as well.

Also why couldn't Duran get it done the 2nd time? Knew he got lucky in the 1st fight.

Other than that win they're fairly equal but that pushes him a notch above the pair

Duran beat Leonard but you seem to be making excuses for that or is it a one way thing where a controversial win can be excused but a close win gets dismissed?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ali
Robinson
Armstrong
Leonard
Greb
Pep
Saddler
Langford
B Leonard
Hopkins
Charles
Mayweather
Duran
Chavez
jones jr
Fitzsimmons
Burley
Jofre
whittaker
Arguello

Top 20 or so for me..

Suprised to see you have Duran above the likes of Whittaker, Arguello and Fitzsimmons ,Truss. You haven't been winding us up in past when discussing Duran have you?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Other than that win they're fairly equal but that pushes him a notch above the pair

Duran beat Leonard but you seem to be making excuses for that or is it a one way thing where a controversial win can be excused but a close win gets dismissed?

Arguello got knocked out by a bum early in his career that doesn't make the bum higher than Corrales etc now does it, this is what I mean by buttlicking the old timers and past fighters...Leonard had a off night in the 1st fight and the 2nd fight showed the gulf in class.

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?