My take on the all-time greats, for anyone who is interested

Good afternoon fellas, hope your day so far hasn’t been as slow as mine! Due to that slow day, I’ve decided to offer up a little something to pass the time, and hope some of you will comment if you’re interested. Not all that original, but still, it’s either this or another article about a certain Bermondsey Heavyweight, and I think we can all do without that, Haye? Oops, sorry, I mean eh?

I’ve been criticised now and then in the past for being a little too biased to certain old time fighters when evaluating their place in history, and after a while of crying ‘not guilty’ I’ve decided that, in fact, one or two of those criticisms might have been justified. So I’ve had a reshuffle and reassessed the men who were, in my eyes, the finest twenty-five, pound for pound, to have graced the sport, and have surprised myself slightly, eliminating some names which I used to consider certainties. Joe Gans, ‘Barbados’ Joe Walcott and Kid Gavilan, who used to all feature (Gans as high as circa sixteen / seventeen) are all gone, though the ‘Old Master’ would still be my number twenty-six. And in come two or three other names from the more modern era who I used to consider ‘only’ top thrity-five / forty merchants, but who I’ve come to appreciate a little more recently.

Anyway, without further ado, here is my final reckoning.

1a) Henry Armstrong 1b) Ray Robinson (taking a leaf out of Jimmy Stuart’s book, there!) 3) Harry Greb 4) Sam Langford 5) Ezzard Charles 6) Muhammad Ali 7) Roberto Duran 8) Bob Fitzsimmons 9) Benny Leonard 10) Eder Jofre 11) Willie Pep 12) Ray Leonard 13) Barney Ross 14) Mickey Walker 15) Gene Tunney 16) Carlos Monzon 17) Joe Louis 18) Pernell Whitaker 19) Julio Cesar Chavez 20) Archie Moore 21) Sandy Saddler 22) Alexis Arguello 23) Michael Spinks 24) Tony Canzoneri 25) Bernard Hopkins

So there you have it. Debate and opinion is the name of the game, so if anyone’s interested then let me have it, lads. Cheers.

Would have to have Fitzsimmons above Langford and do now consider both Pacquiao and Mayweather to be top 25 worthy, but only just at 24 and 25 respectively.
Micky Walker and Canzoneri i'd take out altogether to make way, Gans would have to feature as well possibly at the expense of Saddler or Spinks

1. Robinson
2. Charles
3. Greb
4. Armstrong
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Duran
7. Jofre
8. Tunney
9. Ali
10. B. Leonard
11. Langford
12. Pep
13. R. Leonard
14. Ross
15. Louis
16. Whitaker
17. Monzon
18. Arguello
19. Moore
20. Hopkins
21. Chavez
22. Gans
23. Spinks
24. Pacquiao
25. Mayweather

Chris have nothing but admiration for you taking on this task, personally can just about get to a ten before my head starts to hurt. Suspect this will put the final nail in my old timer bias coffin but c'est la vie.

1 Robinson
2 Greb
3 Armstrong
4 Langford
5 Ali
6 Fitzsimmons
7 Leonard (B)
8 Charles
9 Sugar Ray Leonard
10 Duran

As an aside Chris do you not feel there is a case for McLarnin making the top 25, realise taking on this task is nigh on impossible but for me he more than held his own in a fearsome era, have always wondered slightly how the likes of Canzoneri and Ross frequently feature but Jimmy gets overlooked.

I can't agree with Hopkins above FMJ and Pacquaio, but other than that not too much to grumble about!

Jeff I no longer have respect for your opinion and as such will have to say that Jamie Moore beats Charley Burley with one hand tied behind is back, the Leonards above Duran, what the hell are you thinking man

Hopkins rates higher for me too, cleaned out the middleweight division and has now twice beaten the man at light heavyweight with a very good win over Pavlik in between

Thanks for contributing, chaps.

Ghosty, I can understand you perhaps dropping Canzoneri out. Had this argument with IJK on the old boards, and he argued that a man who was 10-10-1 in title fights simply shouldn't be so high up, which I suppose is understandable. But he was mixing it with phenomenal opposition, and from the age of eighteen onwards, too. In the days of only ten divisions with one champion in each, winning titles in three of them and boxing a draw for a fourth entitles him to a place, for me. Ambers, Berg, Bass, Singer, Dundee etc is one hell of a win column.

As for Walker, I simply don't see how he can't be included. Moreover, I can't see how he can be outside the top fifteen. Won the Welterweight title, won the Middleweight title, came seriously close twice to dethroning two all-time Light-Heavyweight greats for the title there, and by the end of his career was beating fully-fledged Heavyweights. I think he faced something like fifteen world champions, unheard of back then.

Rowley, McLarnin didn't miss out by all that much. I think the problem is that he never really dominated a division for an extended period of time, although as you've alluded to that's a harsh statement given that he was mixing it with some unbelievable competition.

I'm not a huge fan of Walker i'll admit Chris although he's someone I do need to read up on a bit more, just rate the boxers in my 25 more than him, didn't miss out by my much though

McLarnin is someone who does get overlooked, had a ridiculous run of victories at the tailend of his career which is almost unparalleled- Corbett, Ross, Canzoneri and Ambers is mightily impressive, more so than anything my numbers 24/25 have done so may find Mayweather dropping out. Can't be I overlooked him when i've been such an advocate of his in the past

Fists at the risk of coming over all Truss on this one am not as sold on Duran as many on here on, is a truly phenomenal light weight and his win over Leonard first time is probably as good a win in the history of the sport, but following those up with losses to guys like Laing has to count against him. Appreciate he was not at his imperious best at this point but he was also not as shot as some would have you believe and for me it is the kind of loss glossed over a little quickly. However will leave it at that because sure Chris did not want to spend three hours wading through rolled like a drunk comments when he wrote the thread.

Chris can see your point about McLarnin but knowing you have read the same biography on him as I have I personally always put the brevity of the title reign down to a financial decision by Pop Foster rather than any lack of ability or willingness on Jimmy's part and perhaps give him a bit of a pass for this

alma wrote:Chris, any particular reason why you've re-evaluated?

Not in particular, alma. To be honest I'm forever switching certain fighters here or there, but just felt that I'd been a little too easy on a few oldtimers. For instance, I used to always have Gans ahead of Whitaker, but when I look back now, I think 'why?' Don't really see any reason for him to be ahead of Sweet Pea. Likewise, 'Barbados' Walcott used to be a fixture in my list, and I still marvel at how a 5'1" Welterweight could knock out a genuinely brilliant Light-Heavyweight such as Joe Choynski while being outweighed by 36 lb - the same Choynski who knocked out Jack Johnson soon after. But was his Welterweight title reign any better than Hopkins' Middleweight tenure? Not really. Throw in Hopkins' phenomenal ability to defy father time (in it's own way just as remarkable as Walcott defying weight and height to beat Choynski) and, once again, I think he deserves the nod over someone like Barbados Joe.

Good stuff, Rowley. Very true when you mention the McLarnin-Foster relationship in relation to his relatively brief tenure as Welterweight champion. As I said, the fact that he didn't rack up numerous defences is misleading, really - a great fighter by any definition, just a problem that there's so many others to consider, too. Wouldn't have any objections to anyone placing him in their list.

Would have found room for Ketchel, Hagler and RJJ, but some very good lists there.

hogey wrote:Would have found room for Ketchel, Hagler and RJJ, but some very good lists there.

Thanks for commenting, hogey. Hagler and Ketchel were both hovering around the thirty mark, so didn't miss out by much. Jones Jr, who I've been too harsh on in the past according to some, still doesn't get any higher than fortyish, for me, though at the same time I can understand people disagreeing with that. He was a very, very special talent in his time and is a tough night's work for anyone in history anywhere between 160 lb and 175 lb. I just don't see enough depth in his record to warrant a top twenty-five spot. But that's just me.

Enjoyed your list thanks, shame that Joey Giardello never gets a look-in, a chequered career certainly,but within his wins he beats Ray Robinson and Dick Tiger back to back-if we can allow Marciano and Jeffries their rep. on beating but a couple of all-time greats, he should be up there.
Spinks is not even in my top three light-heavies.(But great to see Archie Moore).Shame no Jimmy Wilde, however I know that he is only grudgingly be left out, but I would have him top fifteen ,no question.

I am a little conflicted on Ketchel whilst he is obviously a terrific middleweight who proved his worth and earned his standing in the division with wins over Papke and Sullivan amongst others I have a sneaking suspiscion he is one of those guys whose legacy is helped by him dying young. It looks likely his next defence would have been against Langford and for the life of me I can't see him winning that one.

Add into that the fact his lifestyle made Hatton look commited to his trade and the rumours (unsubstantiated I should add) that he had developed something of an opium habit and I personally think had he lived he would have lost his title to Langford and potentially drifted into an inglorious end of career, which given his age at dying would perhaps take a lot of sheen of his standing.

Appreciate there are a lot of rumours and what ifs in there and we should only judge fighters on what they did rather than what might have happened but is something that has been nagging away at me when it comes to Ketchel.

No Hagler in most baffles me, think he beats Hopkins everyday of the week.

Thanks, Andygf. Interesting shout for Giardello. Certainly, like Hopkins, he was a late bloomer, and was very competitive in a golden era for the Middleweights. I think you really need to have a better win-loss ration in such an era to qualify for a top twenty-five list, though. Great fighter though, no doubt.

Spinks is just outside of my top three Light-Heavyweights, too, but what is massively significant is that he was the first Light-Heavyweight champion to step up and win the Heavyweight crown. Given how many greats had tried it before him (Moore, Lesnevich, Carpentier, Loughran, John Henry Lewis and so on) I think it entitles him to a high ranking.

As for Wilde, you're right in that it's with a feeling of begrudgingness that I have to leave him out. The same goes for the other stand out Brit, Ted 'Kid' Lewis. Essentially, I'd rank Flyweight probably the weakest of the original weight classes, historically speaking. When I look at who Wilde beat to become the greatest Flyweight of them all compared to who Loughran had to beat just to become a top five / six Light-Heavyweight, for instance, it's a no contest. And once you've taken a top two or three from the other original divisions, as well as the likes of Langford, Fitzsimmons etc, then you get to twenty-five pretty quickly.

Young_Towzer wrote:No Hagler in most baffles me, think he beats Hopkins everyday of the week.

Very possibly, Towzer. Depends on how you rate fighters in the all-time sense. Personally, I don't put much stock in the 'who beats who?' arguments, and feel that overall achievements, quality of opposition and dominance of their era should be the foremost factors. I'd have Hagler two or three spots ahead of Hopkins purely at Middleweight, but what Hopkins has done at Light-Heavyweight while on the wrong side of forty is phenomenal. There are literally only one or two fighters in history who have been so effective at such an advanged age as Hopkins has.

Haglers best win which was over Hearns isn't too far ahead of Hopkins win over Trinidad, at the time that they fought Tito was a more proven Middleweight than Tommy was combine that with wins over Tarver, Wright, Pavlik and Pascal when he's into his 40's and you're left with an outstanding record. Have always felt that BHOP is all wrong for Hagler, with only Monzon being someone i'd happily pick to beat him at middleweight.

Chris as always great article mate.
I hate putting these lists together it makes my head hurt and then I look at it have an argument with myself about someone I left out rip it up and start again.

Too right Kev, always a difficult thing to do, but a labour of love all the same. As I said above, I'm forever changing my mind with regards to certain fighters here and there, but will probably be keeping the order above for the time being...Which might not be all that long.

It's not easy PBK, always find I forget someone then feel like a fool

I always try and put Pep in my top 10 but like Chris has it's a hard task. Then I think I'm favouring the old timers and try and get a few more modern fighters in. I'm compiling a list atm. Should be finished sometimes next year.

I make no bones about favouring the old timers, great as Hopkins, Pacquiao and Mayweather are their records don't compare to the guys I have in my top ten

Chris, nice to see someone like Hopkins making your top 25 who I rate very highly both on resume and skills wise. But can you see him making it much higher? As impressive as it is beating all these young guns the LHW division isn't exactly stacked with quality which may make it harder for him to get much higher in your rankings. Perhaps if some of the SMWs move up? How high up do you think he could potentially go and who would he have to beat?

paperbag_puncher wrote:Chris, nice to see someone like Hopkins making your top 25 who I rate very highly both on resume and skills wise. But can you see him making it much higher? As impressive as it is beating all these young guns the LHW division isn't exactly stacked with quality which may make it harder for him to get much higher in your rankings. Perhaps if some of the SMWs move up? How high up do you think he could potentially go and who would he have to beat?

Thanks for getting involved, Paperbag. I agree that Hopkins hasn't exactly been beating all-time greats at Light-Heavyweight for his two titles there in the shape of Tarver and Pascal, but they were the best in the division at the time. To be 'the man' in any division in your mid forties in an incredible feat, and one which Hopkins deserves massive credit for. His consistency and longevity in winning a fully legitimate world title at forty-six is a greater achievement than Pacquiao's eight 'world titles' for my money. I agree that there isn't really anyone at 175 lb who would add all that much to his legacy if he were to beat them - beating Dawson and Cleverly might move him up a single place or so. I suppose if someone with a proven track record at the very highest level like Froch (if he gets past Ward) stepped up and Hopkins beat him, we'd have to seriously consider a top twenty spot for Bernard, given that Froch himself would be a pound for pound contender and would be in the form of his life.

I just hope that Hopkins doesn't lose between now and whenever his career ends (who knows when that will be!?). He's worked bloody hard to get so high up in many people's estimations, would be a shame to see father time catch up with him and give people a reason to question such estimations.

With Moore at the tail end of a top 20 can't genuinely see Hopkins ever jumping ahead of the old mongoose

True true.. Agree with all the points above. Wouldn't mind seeing him having a go at one of the CW champs. While that division is even less stacked than the LHWs winning a title in another division would definitely add to his already legendary exploits. Cunningham aint bad but some of the other lads up there are there for the taking.

My list would probably be as follows:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Gene Tunney
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Sam Langford
8. Roberto Duran
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Eder Jofre
11. Willie Pep
12. Benny Leonard
13. Muhammad Ali
14. Joe Louis
15. Barney Ross
16. Mickey Walker
17. Joe Gans
18. Carlos Monzon
19. Julio Cesar Chavez
20. Alexis Arguello
21. Jimmy McClarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Jimmy Wilde
24. Sandy Saddler
25. Stanley Ketchell

I consider the top 5 to be automatics in a top ten list. Couldnt imagine my top ten ever being without them. After that the placings become marginal to the point of being almost arbritrary.

Would definately have to make room for Joe Gans in any top 25 list. For me he is possibly the most complete fighter in history and my personal best ever lightweight.

88Chris05 wrote:I agree that Hopkins hasn't exactly been beating all-time greats at Light-Heavyweight for his two titles there in the shape of Tarver and Pascal, but they were the best in the division at the time.

~ Dear sir, it strikes me that so many of you chaps wouldn't recognize the "best" if they were sitting next to you at ringside.

Mr. Tarver and Mr. Pascal were the Ring Champions which is hardly synonymous for the best unless you think that Mr. Leon Spinks and The Great Baldomir were the best their divisions had to offer.

Surely you would never think they and similar ilk are the best in a million lifetimes of reincarnations?

Or perhaps Mr. Douglas, Mr. Ingo and Mr. Braddock were also the best, yes?

Colonial, on the subject of Gans have you read the Aycock book on him, am getting it at the end of the month I think so would welcome your thoughts on it if you have read it

Lion, I know you're a big fan of 'The Old Master' (as am I) and so am glad you've commented. As I said, Gans would be only a shade behind Hopkins. However, fabulous as he was at 135 lb, I rank Duran and Leonard ahead of him at the weight and, after some consideration, I've decided that Whitaker trumps him at Lightweight, too.

I think it's a shame that the suspicious nature of some of Gans' defeats at the highest level mean we'll never know if he could have been greater than he already was. The newspaper which covered the McGovern bout stated that the fight could "scarcely have been on a level", but that's they type of win which would have got him closer to the likes of Duran and Leonard. Meanwhile, I don't really think that Battling Nelson (who edged him in title fights), Herman and Erne represents a better body of wins, collectively, than Ramirez, Azumah Nelson, Haugen and Nazario, who were all beaten by Whitaker at 135 lb.

I think Gans deserves massive credit for helping to usher in a more scientific approach in an era where that wasn't the norm, but as I said, I think there's an element of doubt over him due to the suspicious nature of the McGovern and (first) Erne fight - perhaps boxing never saw the absolute best of him?

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I agree that Hopkins hasn't exactly been beating all-time greats at Light-Heavyweight for his two titles there in the shape of Tarver and Pascal, but they were the best in the division at the time.

~ Dear sir, it strikes me that so many of you chaps wouldn't recognize the "best" if they were sitting next to you at ringside.

Mr. Tarver and Mr. Pascal were the Ring Champions which is hardly synonymous for the best unless you think that Mr. Leon Spinks and The Great Baldomir were the best their divisions had to offer.

Surely you would never think they and similar ilk are the best in a million lifetimes of reincarnations?

Or perhaps Mr. Douglas, Mr. Ingo and Mr. Braddock were also the best, yes?

If you can name a more worthy Light-Heavyweight than Antonio Tarver in 2006 or Jean Pascal in 2010 / 2011, then by all means please let us know who they were, Albert. Tarver had bested an (admittedly waning) Jones two out of three and had avenged his loss to Johnson. He had the Ring Belt and it was only boxing politics which prevented him from taking the WBC and IBF ones in to that fight as well. Likewise, Pascal was unbeaten at the weight, held the WBC and Ring belts and had beaten the man most considered the previous number one in the division in Dawson. Again, if you have, in your wisdom, spotted a more deserving 175 lb fighter before Hopkins took those two bouts, let us know.

rowley wrote:Colonial, on the subject of Gans have you read the Aycock book on him, am getting it at the end of the month I think so would welcome your thoughts on it if you have read it

I have indeed read it rowley and found it extremelly interesting I must say. It puts a great deal of effort into exploring not just the various fights and talents of Gans but also the surrounding events during Gans own lifetime on political, cultural and social scales so if you are purely intersted in reading just accounts of fights and the fighter himself then you may have to endure several extensive pasages where the author focuses on non boxing events which impacted on Gans life. I found this to be interesting in itself though and there is also plenty of fight analysis to keep one interested. Several controversial issues are explored regarding various fixes and incidents in Gans life and fights which I must admit the author did not entirely convince me of (would be interested to hear your own take on them when you have finished reading it) but certainly provided some food for thought.

Cheers Colonial, as an ex sociology student find the subject of the obstacles black fighters back in the day had to endure and try to overcome fascinating, is no coincidence Burley and Langford are amongst my favourite fighters so personally would consider these a benefit of a book rather than a drawback. Will definitely get the book I think because on the back of the review Windy posted and your recommendation looks money well spent, cheers.

88Chris05 wrote:Lion, I know you're a big fan of 'The Old Master' (as am I) and so am glad you've commented. As I said, Gans would be only a shade behind Hopkins. However, fabulous as he was at 135 lb, I rank Duran and Leonard ahead of him at the weight and, after some consideration, I've decided that Whitaker trumps him at Lightweight, too.

I think it's a shame that the suspicious nature of some of Gans' defeats at the highest level mean we'll never know if he could have been greater than he already was. The newspaper which covered the McGovern bout stated that the fight could "scarcely have been on a level", but that's they type of win which would have got him closer to the likes of Duran and Leonard. Meanwhile, I don't really think that Battling Nelson (who edged him in title fights), Herman and Erne represents a better body of wins, collectively, than Ramirez, Azumah Nelson, Haugen and Nazario, who were all beaten by Whitaker at 135 lb.

I think Gans deserves massive credit for helping to usher in a more scientific approach in an era where that wasn't the norm, but as I said, I think there's an element of doubt over him due to the suspicious nature of the McGovern and (first) Erne fight - perhaps boxing never saw the absolute best of him?

I can certainly entertain arguments for other lightweights to rank ahead. Durans exploits at other weights would see me place him higher in an overall sense and I could certainly entertain that Leonard and Whitakker could argue equal or beter title reigns. But in a pure sense of boxing I think Gans was as well rounded as a fighter has ever been.

Unfortuantely Gans existed in an era which afforded him few luxuries as a fighter. Fixes, fouls, robbings, threats and so on were common practice back then and Gans had to endure the kind of treatment that would never be allowed in a modern ring. The circumstances of the era mean I think allowances have to made for the kind of treatment and luxuries that were denied to fighters (especially black ones). For instance Gans was forced to fight Sam Langford the very next day after beating Dave Holly. Whats more, the fight with Holly was in Philadelphia and the fight with Langford was in Boston meaning that Gans had to travel by train overnight!

It really makes it hard to compare and specualte on how the later greats would fare having to fight in these kind of environments. Whitakker had 10 week training camps and five star treatment. Gans had nothing of the sort and preparation often amounted to long train or bus journeys crammed in with other black families in little more than cargo holds.

Colonial and Rowley, as fate would have it I am expecting a copy of the Gans book to arrive any day now, so will let you know once I've got through it if my thoughts on Gans' career have changed, be they for better or worse. I'm aware of how Gans can hardly have been in absolute one hundred percent condition for the Langford bout, but I'm sure the book will shed a bit more light on some of the other notable fights he had. In particular, I'm hoping it has some depth on the Walcott bout which, I believe, many ringsiders and contemporaries felt Gans had done enough to win.

88Chris05 wrote:Colonial and Rowley, as fate would have it I am expecting a copy of the Gans book to arrive any day now, so will let you know once I've got through it if my thoughts on Gans' career have changed, be they for better or worse. I'm aware of how Gans can hardly have been in absolute one hundred percent condition for the Langford bout, but I'm sure the book will shed a bit more light on some of the other notable fights he had. In particular, I'm hoping it has some depth on the Walcott bout which, I believe, many ringsiders and contemporaries felt Gans had done enough to win.

Actually one aspect which was disappointing was that there in relatively little on the Langford and Walcott fights in comparison with some of the other bouts such as Battling Nelson and Terry McGovern which are explored in more detail.

Would also say that in some cases (as is often with these kind of biographies), there is a certain creative license applied to Gans which to my knowledge is stretching the truth. An example would be crediting Gans as a bonafide champion in 3 of the original weight classes which I would have to dispute.

But would be interested to hear your thoughts on it after.

88Chris05 wrote:

If you can name a more worthy Light-Heavyweight than Antonio Tarver in 2006 or Jean Pascal in 2010 / 2011, then by all means please let us know who they were, Albert.

~ Dear sir, have you no capacity to see the obvious for yourself?

Mr. Tarver was the Ring champ for all of ONE year, a piddling year in long career of the undefeated "Lineal" LH champ, Mr. Erdei. His fights with Mr. Johnson were hardly the stuff to establish that he was the better fighter and he looked a clumsy oaf in the rubber with Jones who was scarcely touched that night, so, please do note kind sir, without that one single punch that knocked out the invincible Jones, Mr. Tarver would scarcely be remembered.

Then we had the rather large arrival of Mr. Adamek sir, or have you forgotten your a, b, and Cs of boxing?

How many "close fights" does a fading down the stretch Mr. Pascal win in Montreal before you understand that sometimes there are no "bests" in boxing? Perhaps had not Mr. Hopkins not ducked all those fighters in his career and not spent the lifetime of a may fly crawling around the ring canvas in the most unmanly executioner manner ever seen against superiors Mr. Calzaghe and Mr. Jones, I might have time for this poser.

But only on the playground with the girls, never, ever in the real world.

Colonial, is a while since I read it but the Langford Gans fight is covered pretty well in Clay Moyle's book about Langford, which is pretty much excellent all round so if either of you have not read it would recommend it without reservation, particularly as Clay has popped into this forum on occasion.

Comical stuff as always, Albert. Erdei's WBO fights against a series of non-entities tucked away in Germany made him a more worthy Light-Heavyweight opponent by 2006 than Tarver, and Adamek, already beaten by Dawson (who in turn lost to Pascal) was a more worthy Light-Heavyweight opponent than Pascal in 2010...Even though he didn't fight in that division anymore by then.

Seriously mate, you should do stand up!

Seriously mate, you should do stand up!
_____________________________________________________

As someone who watches virtually no stand up can only echo these comments.

Great stuff Chris, really enjoyed this post.

Just one question mark in my mind is how high up Bob Fitzsimmons is in your list. Whilst I don't buy into the arguments of "boxers being crude brawlers way back then", or whatever similar comments sometimes get posted on these boards, I still find it difficult to think some guy fighting back in the 19th century really can be said to be better than the technically gifted Leonard or Whittaker (for example).

What are the main reasons for putting him so high? Is it the fights with Corbett and Jeffries?

Think Chris is of the same train of thought as me, talent is only a small part of a fighters all time standing, if it was based purely on talent then the likes of Armstrong, Greb and Duran wouldn't get a look in but what they all did is achieve a hell of a lot which is what Fitzsimmons did. With the exception of Jeffries there wasn't anyone between middleweight and heavyweight he didn't beat.

Dempsey, Maher, Sharkey, Choynski, Corbett, O'brien, Gardner and Ruhlin were all amongst the best fighters around at the time and Fitz beat them all

ChelskiFanski wrote:Great stuff Chris, really enjoyed this post.

Just one question mark in my mind is how high up Bob Fitzsimmons is in your list. Whilst I don't buy into the arguments of "boxers being crude brawlers way back then", or whatever similar comments sometimes get posted on these boards, I still find it difficult to think some guy fighting back in the 19th century really can be said to be better than the technically gifted Leonard or Whittaker (for example).

What are the main reasons for putting him so high? Is it the fights with Corbett and Jeffries?

Thanks for stopping by, Chelski.

I suppose, as I said earlier, a lot of it depends on how you rate fighters and what criteria you think is most important. And I agree that if we did it solely on technical wizardy, then Fitzsimmons would be a long way behind your Leonards and Whitakers. In fact, he probably wouldn't make a top twenty-five at all.

But if, like me, you use achievements and level of opposition faced / beaten within their own era as your primary criteria, then Fitzsimmons, I think, commands a very high place. The 'nonpareil' Jack Dempsey had been exactly that in official Middleweight contests before Fitzsimmons knocked him out. There wasn't a shed load of big names at Middleweight at the time, granted, but he took care of his nearest rival in Jim Hall, and then of course stepped up to Heavyweight to beat Corbett for the title.

I think the biggest testimony to Fitzsimmons' achivements is that, to this day, nobody has replicated his feat of being 'the man' at Middleweight and then being 'the man' at Heavyweight. In fact, it took over one hundred years for anyone to even get close to repeating this, and even then it took a fighter as talented as Roy Jones Jr. Throw in the fact that Fitzsimmons managed to claim another legitimate world title (Light-Heavyweight) while officially past forty, one of only two or three men ever to do so, and you've got one hell of a legacy.

Cheers Ghosty.

I've no reason to disagree with his placing, just a lack of knowledge of that era makes me wonder if he really deserves it. Most people seem to rate him highly though, so I guess the onus is on me to do some learning!

Thanks Chris for the response

I do get accused of being biased to the older fighters but personally find it fascinating reading about them especially guys like Charles, Moore, Fitzsimmons, Tunney and the BMR, a million miles away from the way things are nowadays.

rowley wrote:Seriously mate, you should do stand up!
_____________________________________________________

As someone who watches virtually no stand up can only echo these comments.

Bravo

Muhammad Ali would always be number 1 for me.....longevity, great fighters beat, biggest transcender....and if there were no weight classes he'd whip everybody's butt wouldn't he.......

Robbo at number 2...Armstrong 3, Leonard 4 , Greb5............

Don't know why Rowley always thinks I'm going to say rolled like a drunk everytime he mentions Duran.....

although he was...

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Bob Fitzsimmons
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Sam Langford
8. Willie Pep
9. Gene Tunney
10. Archie Moore
11. Roberto Duran
12. Mickey Walker
13. Benny Leonard
14. Joe Louis
15. Sugar Ray Leonard
16. Sandy Saddler
17. Eder Jofre
18. Barney Ross
19. Tony Canzoneri
20. Alexis Arguello
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Jimmy Wilde
23. Jimmy Mclarnin
24. Thomas Hearns
25. Carlos Monzon


jones and pacquiao make the list when they retire